How is "In God we Trust" and "Under God" constitutional?

[The Black Forrest]

It's true, actually. It's actually an incantation keeping Lucifer sealed in hell.

I read it in a Dan Brown novel.

Someone seriously needs to plug that leak. I'm tired of all our secrets being given away to mediocre dime-store novelists.

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

[Neo Art]

Is it Roe? Could you explain the difference? It would be much appreciated.

see above.

Or, ok, here's the procedural history of the whole big mess.

The original case was Newdow v. Elk Grove, in 2000. Heard in the California District Court. Newdow sued on behalf of his daughter, a minor, claiming that the phrase "under god" violated her 1st and 14th amendment rights. He lost at the district court. He appealed to the 9th circuit court of appeals. The 9th circuit heard the case in Newdow I, and ruled that the pledge DID violate the constitution (there were Newdow II and Newdow III which were related issues as to whether Newdow actually had legal standing).

The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert. Scalia recused himself. 5 judges determined that Newdow lacked standing to bring the suit, and the case was dismissed. 3 judges (Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas) found Newdow DID have standing, and wrong separate opinions, but since they were in the minority, their decision was not binding law.

In 2007 Newdow, acting as the ATTORNEY for 3 unnamed families, brought suit again. This suit was brought to distict court where the court, acting on the previous ruling from the Circuit court, found it unconstitutional.

However the 9th circuit reversed itself, ruling 2-1 that the pledge WAS constitutional. This was in 2010. SCOTUS denied cert.

[Neo Art]

I was speaking more to "in god we trust...."

First case wasn't really serious as he didn't have the right to bring suit for his daughter.

The second (I admit to not knowing it happened) looks pretty weak to my untrained eyes. I would defer to our resident lawyers to explain if I am wrong.

Newdow v Carey overturned Elk Grove v Newdow.

ehhh, ish? Technically since Elk Grove was dismissed on standings grounds by SCOTUS, the 9th circuit court of appeals had no precidential value, it sorta got hand waved by SCOTUS into a "this never happened". You can't technically overturn a case that was never a valid legal ruling in the first place.

It's fair to say that the 9th circuit came to a different conclusion.

[Caninope]

*snip*

Oh, I knew all that.

I meant Newdow v. Carey/Rio Lindo and Roe v. Rio Lindo.

Turns out that it's the same case.

[Caninope]

Newdow v Carey overturned Elk Grove v Newdow.

ehhh, ish? Technically since Elk Grove was dismissed on standings grounds by SCOTUS, the 9th circuit court of appeals had no precidential value, it sorta got hand waved by SCOTUS into a "this never happened". You can't technically overturn a case that was never a valid legal ruling in the first place.

It's fair to say that the 9th circuit came to a different conclusion.

Fair enough.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Someone seriously needs to plug that leak. I'm tired of all our secrets being given away to mediocre dime-store novelists.

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

We have some standards.

[Individuality-ness]

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

We have some standards.

We do? Since when?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

We have some standards.

We do? Since when?

It's the Dan Brown line.

I always believed it was common knowledge.

[The Black Forrest]

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

We have some standards.

I think you are on the wrong board. This is NSG.

[Mavorpen]

We have some standards.

We do? Since when?

Since I don't engage my "Captain Jack Harkness" mode during debates in NSG. Rather I prefer to keep it in TET.

[Neo Art]

*snip*

Oh, I knew all that.

I meant Newdow v. Carey/Rio Lindo and Roe v. Rio Lindo.

Turns out that it's the same case.

Again, sort of. This is what happens when you have a series of cases all going at the same time with all the same theme with all parties enjoining and entering and merging, and cases being severed and rejoined, names all get sorta fubared, until you end up with "OK, Doe and Roe and Newdow.."

"wait...Newdow? Wasn't he the last guy?"

"No."

"He was, I'm sure he was. Isn't he the lawyer in this one"

"no..no he's a plaintiff"

"how is he a plaintiff, didn't we have a supreme court case, like, 3 years ago that said he couldn't?

"you shut up, you shut the hell up!"

[Mavorpen]

Oh, I knew all that.

I meant Newdow v. Carey/Rio Lindo and Roe v. Rio Lindo.

Turns out that it's the same case.

Again, sort of. This is what happens when you have a series of cases all going at the same time with all the same theme with all parties enjoining and entering and merging, and cases being severed and rejoined, names all get sorta fubared, until you end up with "OK, Doe and Roe and Newdow.."

"wait...Newdow? Wasn't he the last guy?"

"No."

"He was, I'm sure he was. Isn't he the lawyer in this one"

"no..no he's a plaintiff"

"how is he a plaintiff, didn't we have a supreme court case, like, 3 years ago that said he couldn't?

"you shut up, you shut the hell up!"

I'm not sure why anyone would say law is boring. Some of this stuff is quite amusing/

[Wikkiwallana]

Someone seriously needs to plug that leak. I'm tired of all our secrets being given away to mediocre dime-store novelists.

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

Because I have yet to see a giant post full of meaningless pseudo-philosophical drivel and ancient conspiracy claims that got optioned for a movie deal despite clearly being made of crap?

[Caninope]

Oh, I knew all that.

I meant Newdow v. Carey/Rio Lindo and Roe v. Rio Lindo.

Turns out that it's the same case.

Again, sort of. This is what happens when you have a series of cases all going at the same time with all the same theme with all parties enjoining and entering and merging, and cases being severed and rejoined, names all get sorta fubared, until you end up with "OK, Doe and Roe and Newdow.."

"wait...Newdow? Wasn't he the last guy?"

"No."

"He was, I'm sure he was. Isn't he the lawyer in this one"

"no..no he's a plaintiff"

"how is he a plaintiff, didn't we have a supreme court case, like, 3 years ago that said he couldn't?

"you shut up, you shut the hell up!"

Ladies and gentleman, that is one of the most accurate and concise reenactments of the American judicial system ever put into writing.

[Caninope]

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

Because I have yet to see a giant post full of meaningless pseudo-philosophical drivel and ancient conspiracy claims that got optioned for a movie deal despite clearly being made of crap?

Clearly, you haven't been looking hard enough.

[Mavorpen]

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

Because I have yet to see a giant post full of meaningless pseudo-philosophical drivel and ancient conspiracy claims that got optioned for a movie deal despite clearly being made of crap?

Ayn Randickson.

[Wikkiwallana]

Oh, I knew all that.

I meant Newdow v. Carey/Rio Lindo and Roe v. Rio Lindo.

Turns out that it's the same case.

Again, sort of. This is what happens when you have a series of cases all going at the same time with all the same theme with all parties enjoining and entering and merging, and cases being severed and rejoined, names all get sorta fubared, until you end up with "OK, Doe and Roe and Newdow.."

"wait...Newdow? Wasn't he the last guy?"

"No."

"He was, I'm sure he was. Isn't he the lawyer in this one"

"no..no he's a plaintiff"

"how is he a plaintiff, didn't we have a supreme court case, like, 3 years ago that said he couldn't?

"you shut up, you shut the hell up!"

Someone needs to go over our legal system with a tangle brush, it seems.

[Individuality-ness]

We do? Since when?

It's the Dan Brown line.

I always believed it was common knowledge.

Apparently not, I wasn't aware of it until now.

Since I don't engage my "Captain Jack Harkness" mode during debates in NSG. Rather I prefer to keep it in TET.

Makes sense. I think.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because I have yet to see a giant post full of meaningless pseudo-philosophical drivel and ancient conspiracy claims that got optioned for a movie deal despite clearly being made of crap?

Clearly, you haven't been looking hard enough.

I've seen plenty of overly complicated fabrications presented as factual, but I'm not going to believe Dan Brown was behind any of them until Hollywood picks one up.

[The Black Forrest]

How do you know Dan Brown isn't a Generalite?

Because I have yet to see a giant post full of meaningless pseudo-philosophical drivel and ancient conspiracy claims that got optioned for a movie deal despite clearly being made of crap?

I'm sorry my sarcasm detector was off. Could you repeat that?

I could name a few people but I am not in the mood for a modly beat down.

[Tires Rock]

God is not exclusive to religion.

This should be interesting. Please explain.

What is there to explain? It's perfectly possible for someone to believe in god while not subscribing to any religion. I believe the young folk nowadays say "spiritual bur not religious."

[Mavorpen]

This should be interesting. Please explain.

What is there to explain? It's perfectly possible for someone to believe in god while not subscribing to any religion. I believe the young folk nowadays say "spiritual bur not religious."

Is ceremonial deism really the best argument people have for this...?

[Tires Rock]

What is there to explain? It's perfectly possible for someone to believe in god while not subscribing to any religion. I believe the young folk nowadays say "spiritual bur not religious."

Is ceremonial deism really the best argument people have for this...?

I'm not arguing FOR it, I'm just saying that changing it is a bit like gettin off ya azz in July to put up Christmas lights.

[Mavorpen]

Is ceremonial deism really the best argument people have for this...?

I'm not arguing FOR it, I'm just saying that changing it is a bit like gettin off ya azz in July to put up Christmas lights.

So you're not discussing the topic of the thread. Lovely.

Well I suppose this thread is doomed to a heat death.

[Tires Rock]

I'm not arguing FOR it, I'm just saying that changing it is a bit like gettin off ya azz in July to put up Christmas lights.

So you're not discussing the topic of the thread. Lovely.

Well I suppose this thread is doomed to a heat death.

I'm askin, who gives a deepfried whale turd?