Newdow seeks injuction to prevent P.E. Obama from saying

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1650614' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.51']In Newdow's case, he is in fact arguing for the enforcement of existing law. Whether his argument along the First Amendment line carries weight or not remains to be seen, if it ever gets time in front of the SCOTUS. I think it has a fighting chance, based on some of our courts' rulings on prayer before football games in high schools.[/quote]

Well, let's be clear. "Existing law" doesn't cover this case. There's some precedent that Newdow will likely invoke on his side, although it seems like it will be trumped by Marsh v. Chambers, which hasn't been overruled to my knowledge and is a lot closer to the case at hand. But there's no precedent that covers what a Chief Justice may say while performing the oath to a President-Elect. It also seems pretty clear that Newdow really doesn't have any standing in this case. But there's no cut-and-dried precedent on point here, and the twists and turns of Establishment Clause decisions can get a little arbitrary.

[quote]In terms of your counter-examples, i.e. St. Louis or San Francisco, I would argue that if a new city were to be named as, say, St. Augustine, that there'd be a justified case to oppose it. Do I think we ought to rename our cities that currently have religious names? Yes, I do. But that's lower on the priority list, at least for me.[/quote]

Oh. Fair enough.

[Dumas]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1650584' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.24']Dumas,




I think any attempt to improve the image of atheists will actually have the opposite effect, to say nothing of, why should we try to make other people feel safer?


I'm tired of the thinking that goes on, that the largest religious demographic, the demographic, incidentally, who holds the principal wealth and power in this country, has to be coddled and coaxed into doing what's right.


"Oooooh ... Nooooo, sweetheart. You didn't ask [i]sweeeeetly[/i] enough!"


Enough with the handjobs, hoping for a kiss in return.[/quote]


What the hell? That was not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Newdow is a jackass wasting his damn time on things that don't matter. If he has the energy, time, and money to throw lawsuits around about random phrases, he has the time, energy, and money to fight on substantive issues. Like trying to change the idea that morality automatically or exclusively comes from religion or fighting against real mistreatment of nonbelievers.

And part of getting fair treatment in this case might just be as simple or low-key as working to dispel the myths and mistrust surrounding those of different beliefs. The legal system is good at redressing a lot of things, but it is not the appropriate venue for every battle over rights nor the most effective.

[TheKassi]

Alright, I am tired of all the claims that the Newdow case has legal and Constitutional grounding based on cases that end school prayer and so forth, so I have spent last night drafting this, and today editing it. Here goes.

First, there is a valuable little protection called the separation of powers. Lets take an example.

A bill is coming before Congress that outlaws Atheism and punishes it with death. Obviously this is unconstitutional.

Bobby sees that this is unconstitutional, and files a document with the courts. Bobby claims to be an Atheist, and says that this bill will violate his rights. As evidence he provides the first amendment, which clearly states that the Government doesn't have the authority to kill Atheists for being Atheists. He asks that the courts force Congress to vote no on the bill, and the President to veto the bill in case Congress refuses the order?
What happens?

They rule against Bobby. The Constitution doesn't grant the courts the authority to tell Congress or the President not to do something unconstitutional. They tell Bobby not to worry however, cause when he gets arrested and convicted, he can appeal, resulting in the conviction and law being overturned.

Just because people in the Government are about to do something unconstitutional doesn't mean The Courts are automatically empowered to order them to stop.

(But wait Kassi, Newdow isn't targeting Obama or Congress in the complaint.)

Yes he is. The Chief Justice isn't empowered by the Constitution to give the oath. It has become tradition for the President to have the Chief Justice give the oath, it is up to the President to select who gives the oath, and how it is given.

Obama can, as example, order chief Justice Roberts to dress up like an Elvis impersonator and sing him the oath, while affirming the oath with “Cause the king told me to baby!” if he wishes to. Chief Justice Roberts can of course tell Obama where to stick it. If Chief Justice chooses to do so, Obama will simply appoint someone who will follow his instructions.

The same is true for the presidential inaugural committee. These are not people empowered by the government to do official things. They are empowered by Obama's instructions. Thusly ruling in favor of Newdow on either count would be over ruling Obama.

Even if that line of logic is rejected, legally a court can only issue such an order if issuing such an order will prevent the harm Newdow is claiming he will be forced to endure.

Ordering Roberts to stick to the oath will not stop the harm in question. Why? Because Obama can replace the person giving the oath at any time he wants. He can even stop the oath in mid-oath, and restart it with another person.

Thusly ordering Roberts to stick to the oath doesn't have any effect on the harm that is coming Newdow's way when the oath giver prompts Obama to say the words in god we trust.

In order to stop the harm Newdow is going to suffer by listening to the oath giver prompt Obama to say “So help me god” the courts would have to order Obama not to instruct the oath giver he selects to affirm his oath with that phrase.

The courts can not give Obama such an order, thus it is impossible for the courts to protect Newdow from harm , thusly the courts lack the authority to rule in favor of Newdow.

Even if that wasn't true, and even if the courts could order the president or the congress on issues of how they exercise their power, Marsh cleared all this up a long time ago. The facts there are simple.

Constitutional law, barring amendment, is all about interpreting the intentions of the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution. It is the responsibility of courts ruling on Constitutional issues to rule on that basis.

The Supreme Court can not, as example, decide that the second amendment isn't talking about weapons, it is saying that the government isn't allowed to amputate people's limbs, because it says people are allowed to have arms, not weapons.

If you wish to overrule the intent of the founding fathers, you have to write a Constitutional Amendment, and get it ratified.

Well, The founding fathers were liberally opening official events with prayers and such when the ink of the Bill of Rights was still drying. Thusly it is pretty ridicules to argue that they intended that the first amendment prohibit such things.

Politicians referencing god, and opening official events with prayer does not violate the first amendment, it is protected by the first amendment. If you wish to change that, you have to amend The Constitution. If you wish the courts to enforce such things, you have to amend it a bunch more.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1650584' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.24']I'm tired of the thinking that goes on, that the largest religious demographic, the demographic, incidentally, who holds the principal wealth and power in this country, has to be coddled and coaxed into doing what's right.[/quote]

Oh, now I see the problem. You think you are right.

Why are you right and they are wrong?

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1650614' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.51']Another distinction is that many of these battles, such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on our printed currency, were actually quite recent. They were added some time in the relatively recent past.

Given our cultural climate and the reality of religion in this country, I think that arguing "in God we trust" and "so help me God" are value-neutral in the context of affirming one's faith stretches the boundary of credibility to the breaking point. That line of argument is even harder to justify in the cases of invocations and benedictions, where the entire ceremony was crafted based on religious significance with the explicit function of calling upon the aid of some deity to the functioning of this country. It's like arguing that a mass is just a gathering of like-minded folks who like cheap wafer cookies and mediocre red wine.[/quote]

This makes sense. Also, if the mentioning of God is so ceremonial and meaningless, why do Americans get so fired up when someone asks to remove it? Clearly, there's something more at work here than simple habit. Hell, I have people in my office who get steamed at that email about the batch of coins that mistakenly omitted "In God We Trust." It's [i]not [/i]ceremonial for them, and I suspect they're hardly outliers in this respect.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1650836' date='Jan 15 2009, 22.44']This makes sense. Also, if the mentioning of God is so ceremonial and meaningless, why do Americans get so fired up when someone asks to remove it? Clearly, there's something more at work here than simple habit. Hell, I have people in my office who get steamed at that email about the batch of coins that mistakenly omitted "In God We Trust." It's [i]not [/i]ceremonial for them, and I suspect they're hardly outliers in this respect.[/quote]

I disagree. It does not mean that it is not cermonial, it just means that to them the cermony matters to them. Cermonial does not mean that it is [b]trivial[/b], just that it is an cultural and social touchstone and not the actual establishment of. People like cermonies, they are about social harmonization, make sure everyone claps at the right spots, stands and sits at the right time, everyone says the right things, and the bonds that form the cultural norm are forged again.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1650424' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.27']They rally around the cross by giving every senator five minutes to talk about how much saying in god we trust, under god, or so help me god is important to them and the nation, even though they do not have any authority in what happens next. Next time Newdow makes one of these attempts, turn on C-span. You will see fifty or sixty little speeches about how keen god and tradition are.[/quote]

How much of an effect did that have? Quantify it for me. Are there Senators that got elected on a "Keep God in our Money platform" against a Strict Constitutionalists? If not than what really happened was Newdow got press for the cause and started a conversation, where there really wasn't one before. I don't see how that is counter-productive.

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1650424' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.27']Seriously? You never said The Pledge of Allegiance, took a good look at your money, or watched a presidential inauguration before Newdow started making headlines?[/quote]

I was aware of the wording but never thought through the Constitutional ramifications.

[TheKassi]

First, a Strict Constitutionalist wouldn't be against the words in question on our currency.

Second, the specific amounts are irrelevant. Newdow's goal is to drive a wedge between religion and government, and forever separate the two. His actions cause government and religion to cling tighter together whenever he is in the news. It is a Pavlovian response. There is Newdow. Quick everyone praise god least our constituency think we agree with him.

The response of the Senate to Newdow when he first showed up was to pass a resolution in support of the phrase “Under god” in the Pledge. Immediately Congress tried to resurrect a bill designed to limit the jurisdiction of courts in even looking at cases where people were complaining about acknowledging the existence of god, and officially proclaiming god as the “sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.“

And yes, people did use such things to argue they should be reelected.

So yeah. Newdow tries to get under god out of the pledge, and the response is to try push through silliness that legally establishes that god gives us law and freedom and the right of government to rule. Newdow creates flashes of support for such things, sort of the way terrorist attacks create flashes of support for limiting liberty.

Blades cut both ways. Starting conversations about limiting free expression are not automatically good.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1651447' date='Jan 16 2009, 11.22']The response of the Senate to Newdow when he first showed up was to pass a resolution in support of the phrase “Under god” in the Pledge. Immediately Congress tried to resurrect a bill designed to limit the jurisdiction of courts in even looking at cases where people were complaining about acknowledging the existence of god, and officially proclaiming god as the “sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.“[/quote]

I am unconvinced that any attempt to promote increased parity for atheists will be resistance-free. If we sit and wait for a program or a project where atheists can attempt to change our society without religious people getting upset, we might as well give up now. Using the existence of a backlash as a justification to discourage the agitation that brought on that backlash is, imo, misguided. This is the same philosophy that urges the shunning and exclusion of transgendered and/or BD/SM people away from Gay Pride parades, as far as I can tell, and I was never one to stand for it. I refer you back to the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quote I provided earlier on this point.

[The Progressive]

I think Newdow is absolutely correct in his strategy to use incremental legal challenges to question the religious discrimination institutionalized in this country. After all, school desegregation didn't happened over night because white people woke up and felt bad about it one day ............. no, it happened because of incremental legal challenges from civil right leaders, chipping away slowly at the status quo.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1651665' date='Jan 16 2009, 14.57']I think Newdow is absolutely correct in his strategy to use incremental legal challenges to question the religious discrimination institutionalized in this country. After all, school desegregation didn't happened over night because white people woke up and felt bad about it one day ............. no, it happened because of incremental legal challenges from civil right leaders, chipping away slowly at the status quo.[/quote]

Actually the big pillars were actual scietific data that showed that the basis of seperate but equal was inherently detrimental to the students. Before that Plessy v. Ferguson left it perfectly legal as well as reversed gains made during the Reconstruction period.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1651729' date='Jan 16 2009, 12.32']Actually the big pillars were actual scietific data that showed that the basis of seperate but equal was inherently detrimental to the students. Before that Plessy v. Ferguson left it perfectly legal as well as reversed gains made during the Reconstruction period.[/quote]

The scientific data were brought in to support desegregation, but legal challenges to it were incremental and started much earlier than Brown v. Board of Education. In fact, as early as 1849, African Americans have filed suit against an educational system that mandated racial segregation in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1651746' date='Jan 16 2009, 15.40']The scientific data were brought in to support desegregation, but legal challenges to it were incremental and started much earlier than Brown v. Board of Education. In fact, as early as 1849, African Americans have filed suit against an educational system that mandated racial segregation in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston.[/quote]

And none of them worked until there was a court in place and lever big enough to overcome all the previous precedence. Things got worse. Then even after brown that there were were only a handful of legal wins until after there were legislative gains. Since the courts still upheld the limited applicabilty of the equal protection clause.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1651772' date='Jan 16 2009, 12.54']And [b]none of them worked[/b] until there was a court in place and lever big enough to overcome all the previous precedence. Things got worse. Then even after brown that there were were only a handful of legal wins until after there were legislative gains. Since the courts still upheld the limited applicabilty of the equal protection clause.[/quote]

That's an interesting way to look at it. However, as I've read about the history of desegregation, it was successive victories before the Supreme Court, especially two major cases in 1950, that led the NAACP toward a direct assault on Plessy and the so-called "separate-but-equal" doctrine.
[url="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-segregation.html"]http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-segregation.html[/url]

[TheKassi]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1651644' date='Jan 16 2009, 11.44']I am unconvinced that any attempt to promote increased parity for atheists will be resistance-free. If we sit and wait for a program or a project where atheists can attempt to change our society without religious people getting upset, we might as well give up now. Using the existence of a backlash as a justification to discourage the agitation that brought on that backlash is, imo, misguided. This is the same philosophy that urges the shunning and exclusion of transgendered and/or BD/SM people away from Gay Pride parades, as far as I can tell, and I was never one to stand for it. I refer you back to the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quote I provided earlier on this point.[/quote]

A) This isn't about parity. We have that. We are absolutely equal before the eyes of the law, while others still are not. People around here even scorn the concept of taking the time to confront state constitutions. This is about limiting free speech to avoid offending people. Comparing placing limitations on civil rights and protected expression because people are offended by that expression to the civil rights movement is shameful and hypocritical.

B) Illustrating the likely consequences of an action, in this case taking away people's freedom because their expression offends you, to show that an action not only accomplishes nothing, but is likely to result in making a situation worse is not misguided.

The “We must do something, no matter what the risks” line of logic is not wisdom. It isn't wise for the entire crew of a ship to throw themselves overboard to save someone struggling to keep their head above water, and then congratulate each other's bravery as their boat sails away without a helmsmen.

Wisdom is calmly looking around, picking up a rope tied to a flotation device, throwing it to the man overboard, and hauling him back up on deck. It might not be dramatic, or brave, or flashy, but it solves the problem rather then making it worse.

I am not saying do nothing. I am pointing out why backing someone behaving like a fool is foolish. You got legal parity. If you wish religious people to respect your beliefs, try doing something respectable in the name of your beliefs. Supporting someone who spends pages and pages of filed legal documents ranting on the evils of religion, insulting people, comparing preachers to terrorists, and so forth is likely not going to get you the respect of religious individuals.

You do not inspire tolerance by engaging in a contest to see who can be the most intolerant. Nor do you gain tolerance by legislating intolerance.

[The Progressive]

[quote]You got legal parity.[/quote]

Which is precisely what Newdow is exercising. To prevent him from doing so is both shameful and hypocritical.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1651829' date='Jan 16 2009, 13.34']Which is precisely what Newdow is exercising. To prevent him from doing so is both shameful and hypocritical.[/quote]

Umm, mind pointing out where I have advocated legally barring him from engaging in his actions?

Additionally, do you see the irony of defending Newdow, who is working to restrict the rights of others, by claiming that someone restricting his rights would be shameful and hypocritical?

[The Progressive]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1651858' date='Jan 16 2009, 13.49']Umm, mind pointing out where I have advocated legally barring him from engaging in his actions?[/quote]

You sure have spent much efforts castigating his endeavor to pursuit this via legal means; and I wouldn't be surprise if you think that his petitions should be tossed out without being heard by the Supreme Court.

[quote]Additionally, do you see the irony of defending Newdow, who is working to restrict the rights of others, by claiming that someone restricting his rights would be shameful and hypocritical?[/quote]

No; I just see you condoning the institutionalization of certain religious doctrine over others.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1651895' date='Jan 16 2009, 14.24']You sure have spent much efforts castigating his endeavor to pursuit this via legal means; and I wouldn't be surprise if you think that his petitions should be tossed out without being heard by the Supreme Court.[/quote]

What does that have to do with legal parity? The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rule in Newdow's favor. It is impossible for them to prevent the alleged harm that will come Newdow's way if religious ideas are allowed to be expressed at the inaugural ceremony by rendering a verdict. The separation of powers prevents them from ordering Obama to instruct the oath giver he selects not to affirm his oath with “So help me god.” or instruct the people he selects to organize his inaugural ceremony not to invite religious officials to speak.

Newdow himself conceded that the only person who could redress his complaints about the inaugural ceremony was the individual given ultimate authority over the inaugural ceremony. In Bush V Newdow II that was Bush. Here it is Obama. Even if Newdow's allegations of harm and establishment are one hundred percent correct, the only people empowered to do anything in this case is the House of Representatives as they have sole power of impeachment.

Newdow is quite simply barking up the wrong tree in this case. It would be like Newdow trying to stop his home from being bulldozed by a developer by complaining to the health inspector. The health inspector is simply going to blink at him and try to explain alls he can do is deny the developer the right to serve food in his office, and that doing so will not stop his home from being crunched.

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1651895' date='Jan 16 2009, 14.24']No; I just see you condoning the institutionalization of certain religious doctrine over others.[/quote]

Has never happened. I have condoned peaceful expression of religious faith in general, based on the first amendment. The next president can quite explicitly stand up loud and proud at his inaugural ceremony and declare that we, not god, will have to fix our problems because we exist, while god is merely a psychological crutch people lean on to explain the unfortunate facts of life, and legitimize their positions. He can speak endlessly on how we can long longer waste our time on wishes and prayers for a better world, and challenge us to put that effort where it will make a difference.

And if Pat Robertson sues that individual in order to muzzle such sentiment, and particularly if he pacts his complaint with endless rants on the evils of the faithless, I will make similar arguments. This isn't about the institutionalization of certain religious doctrine. This is about the expression of certain religious doctrine.

Night and day difference.

[Maester Yobjascz]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1652003' date='Jan 16 2009, 16.06']What does that have to do with legal parity? The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rule in Newdow's favor. It is impossible for them to prevent the alleged harm that will come Newdow's way if religious ideas are allowed to be expressed at the inaugural ceremony by rendering a verdict. [i][b]The separation of powers prevents them from ordering Obama[/b][/i] to instruct the oath giver he selects not to affirm his oath with “So help me god.” or instruct the people he selects to organize his inaugural ceremony not to invite religious officials to speak.[/quote]

Erm, see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon"]U.S. v. Nixon[/url]. I don't think separation of powers works the way you think it does.