• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

mpg said:
None, that's the point. Something can't violate the Constitution if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Really? What part of the constitution says that? If something isn't the mentioned in the constitution, it is not a violation of constitutional rights? That sounds pretty weak. Illegal wiretaps violate constitutional rights. Nothing about wiretaps in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Most real Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.
Click to expand...

According to the Koran, Bible and Torah they are.

I am also kind of wondering who these "real Christians" are? And how do you pick them out of a crowed and speak for them?
 
Hatuey said:
Really? What part of the constitution says that? If something isn't the mentioned in the constitution, it is not a violation of constitutional rights? That sounds pretty weak. Illegal wiretaps violate constitutional rights. Nothing about wiretaps in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Wiretaps are covered under the right to privacy or be secure in our homes etc. That is what makes it unconstitutional, not the fact it is not mentioned.
 
Hatuey said:
Really? What part of the constitution says that? If something isn't the mentioned in the constitution, it is not a violation of constitutional rights? That sounds pretty weak. Illegal wiretaps violate constitutional rights. Nothing about wiretaps in the constitution.
Click to expand...

This almost sounds like one of those endless paradoxes, like "every thing I say is a lie".
 
Hatuey said:
Really? What part of the constitution says that? If something isn't the mentioned in the constitution, it is not a violation of constitutional rights? That sounds pretty weak. Illegal wiretaps violate constitutional rights. Nothing about wiretaps in the constitution.
Click to expand...
The public option isn't mentioned in the Constitution. According to your logic that makes it unconstitutional.
 
mpg said:
The public option isn't mentioned in the Constitution. According to your logic that makes it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The formation of the Libertarian Party is not mentioned, specifically, in the Constitution. I suppose that makes that unconstitutional, too.

Come on guys, this is a silly argument.
 
Hatuey said:
Really? What part of the constitution says that? If something isn't the mentioned in the constitution, it is not a violation of constitutional rights? That sounds pretty weak. Illegal wiretaps violate constitutional rights. Nothing about wiretaps in the constitution.
Click to expand...

The reason wiretaps are unconstitutional is they violate the fourth amendment if the agency doing the tapping does not get a warrant. If they get a warrant, I have no problem with it.
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
So you agree then?:confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that there is nothing in the Constitution that says generalization about things in the Constitution is permissible.
 
Hatuey said:
Really? What part of the constitution says that? If something isn't the mentioned in the constitution, it is not a violation of constitutional rights? That sounds pretty weak. Illegal wiretaps violate constitutional rights. Nothing about wiretaps in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse.

The Constitution limits government power, but that doesn't mean every single possible thing that could happen in a million years will be in there.

If it's not prohibited, then it's allowable. Any lawyer, judge, or person who has read anything about the Constitution will tell you that, no matter what their political persuasion. (The arguments come over the details about whether the Constitution does prohibit something or not.)
 
Ikari said:
Good guys....HA.

I don't have a problem with the "under God" part of the Allegiance even though it wasn't inserted into the pledge till much later. But I do think that the majority opinion that the Pledge is somehow a uniting force is complete BS. It's a dumb ass thing you have to say as a kid and if you really analyze it is rather fascist. I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. The government damned well pledge allegiance to me and hold up my rights; otherwise it's my right and duty to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Yet you ramble on knowing this country allows you to damn it. Perhaps that priviledge is short lived and the future does not belong to those who bend over backwards to find anything and everything wrong with America.
 
megaprogman said:
The reason wiretaps are unconstitutional is they violate the fourth amendment if the agency doing the tapping does not get a warrant. If they get a warrant, I have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

Wiretaps are not unconstitutional.
 
rhinefire said:
Yet you ramble on knowing this country allows you to damn it. Perhaps that priviledge is short lived and the future does not belong to those who bend over backwards to find anything and everything wrong with America.
Click to expand...
That is not a priviledge. It is a right. See the First Amendment.
 
rhinefire said:
Yet you ramble on knowing this country allows you to damn it. Perhaps that priviledge is short lived and the future does not belong to those who bend over backwards to find anything and everything wrong with America.
Click to expand...

What privilege? My rights? Those aren't a privilege, those are my rights. The government must respect them or I get to do away with the government. That's how it works. The government is my bitch; not the other way around. It better pledge allegiance to me.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
That is not a priviledge. It is a right. See the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Its amazing how often the first amendment is violated and taken out of context by our friends on the left......
 
Groucho said:
And the Constitution was signed over 200 years ago! Man! Who would have thought that things that happened before I was born would be relevant today! :2razz::lol:
;)
Click to expand...

I was a teenager and was about as left leaning as you are...well maybe not that much....;)
 
Navy Pride said:
Its amazing how often the first amendment is violated and taken out of context by our friends on the left......
Click to expand...
So the right to free speech isn't protected in the First Amendment? Please elaborate. I would love to hear it ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom