Larry Tribe criticizes pledge ruling

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

From lower part of AP article found here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020703/ap_on_re_us/pledge_precedent_1)

" Laurence Tribe, a Harvard constitutional law scholar, said Goodwin didn't take into account other cases that say religious aspects of public life aren't always unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court decision upholding religious invocations before statehouse legislative sessions.

Tribe said the insertion of God into the pledge may have been for religious reasons, but five decades later the phrase "under God" no longer evokes a religious experience. He said the Supreme Court has upheld so-called "blue laws" that prohibit businesses from operating in some states on Sunday, even though the laws originally were designed on the premise that "God rested on Sunday."

"A religious origin for something doesn't always doom it," Tribe said.

Under Goodwin's thinking, he added, the Constitution could not be posted in public classrooms because it refers to 1787, "the year of our Lord."

"The Constitution would be unconstitutional," Tribe said. "

Wow. Way to go Tribe! I'm glad you can agree with us conservatives every now and then. images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

If:

"Tribe said the insertion of God into the pledge may have been for religious reasons,"

then why did he follow with:

"but five decades later the phrase "under God" no longer evokes a religious experience"

In 1954, Congress inserted "under God" for religious reasons, while the constitution said
"Congress shall pass no law respecting religion"

So tribe seems to imply the law might have been in disupute in 1954, because people belived that God was part of religion.

Today people no longer believe that God is a necessary part of religion, but a general politeness.

Are you sure you want his help?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

LOL. Considering that Larry Tribe is one of the scholars that most liberal lawyers (and judges) have great respect for (and we need such statements by liberals to get the 9th circuit to reverse itself)....YES! images/icons/wink.gif

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

And I disagree with you on your interpretation of Mr. Tribe's statements. I think he is implying that "under God" has become so commonplace (like the In God We Trust on money) that it isn't considered to, in his own words, "evoke a religious experience." I don't think he is saying that God isn't considered to be part of religion, but just that in this instance the pledge's daily recitation has diminished the effect of its religious phrase.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Young:

In 1954, Congress inserted "under God" for religious reasons, while the constitution said
"Congress shall pass no law respecting religion"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And one more thing Matt. images/icons/grin.gif You left out the words "an establishment of" in your quote of the 1st amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

[Warlady]

The pledge doesn't promote a religion. The ruling was nonsense.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
The pledge doesn't promote a religion. The ruling was nonsense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree totally! My only thought is that to get Tribe to even agree with us on anything (the 9th circuit decision is garabage) is pretty unusual images/icons/smile.gif

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

images/icons/grin.gif Again, I agree that the ruling was liberal activism at its worst

[Warlady]

Tribe supposedly knows his stuff on Constitutional law.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Tribe is one of the best LIBERAL scholars out there. He does know almost every supreme court decision by heart, but I still disagree with him on his interpretation images/icons/smile.gif

[Warlady]

I know very little about him except that he defended Gore.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
I know very little about him except that he defended Gore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was pretty stubborn during the whole thing too. The media reported that he wanted to continue to fight and find a loophole in the Court's decision.

[Warlady]

Guess he hated losing.