"one white nation"

[hive_king]

Do you admit you were wrong?

[luminousnerd]

Do you admit you were wrong?

I was wrong to argue for the phrase "under God" when the whole pledge is out of constitutional boundaries.

But if presented with the two options only, certainly "under god" should stay.

[VelvetElvis]

Are you arguing the "Christian Side?"

[luminousnerd]

Are you arguing the "Christian Side?"

Not really. I was arguing the "It's stupid to waste resources" side. Not all of America is christian, I recognize and respect that.

[VelvetElvis]

Wasting resources is neither a religious issue nor an issue of moral philosophy.

[eriador]

Are you arguing the "Christian Side?"

Not really. I was arguing the "It's stupid to waste resources" side. Not all of America is christian, I recognize and respect that.

Not when you were talking about how it should be kept because "that's the way the nation was founded."

[Jebus]

Let the guy leave this thread feeling like he has some shred of dignity left, people.

[hive_king]

he had dignity to begin with?

[Jebus]

I specifically said "feeling like".

[AnthonyByakko]

I declare myself victorious in this thread.

[luminousnerd]

Indeed, Byakko is victorious, he pwnt all the rest of us. I leave with no less "dignity" than anyone except for Byakko!

[hive_king]

Actually, Byakko didn't win because his argument was irrelevant to the thread. I made the thread, and I made it as a discussion of the ethical and moral fairness of the pledge, not the constitutionality. He's having an entirely different discussion than we are. Apple and oranges, man.

[AnthonyByakko]

The "ethical and moral fairness of the pledge" is what's irrelevant, since we shouldn't have a pledge in the first place. The thread is pointless, I merely pointed it out to everybody.

[hive_king]

So how does one determine "the will of the people" as concerns constitutionality?

[VelvetElvis]

entrails of a year-old ewe.

[AnthonyByakko]

Uh... what the f*** are you two talking about?

King, fortunately America does not abide by vox populi vox dei. The will of the people has nothing to do with Constitutionality, unless the set processes for amending the Constitution are undertaken. A "pledge", such as the one we have, is and will forever remain unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to include such an act. I honestly don't know what the f*** you're trying to say.

Melon, I don't care what you had for dinner. Take that s*** to Milagre.

[hive_king]

in the tenth amendment, "Amendment X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." How do you determine the will of the people as far as exersizing constitutional rights?

[AnthonyByakko]

King, how many times have I invoked and/or copied that very amendment for use in a discussion? I'm well aware of the enumeration of the people's rights. If "the people" wish to pledge, they are free to do so - this does not constitute a national pledge, nor does it codify such a pledge into federal statute - such as our current "pledge" does. You (individually) are free to pledge whatever you wish - allegiance to America, to the Masonic brotherhood, to a goat - I don't care. The "people" have ALL rights - that's the point of the Tenth Amendment - except for those things which are specifically enumerated to the States and to the Federal government. The people can excersise their rights - but cannot create a federal, national "pledge" - and since the federal government has no business creating a pledge, neither can it.

[hive_king]

But if the people and the state wish to cede their power to the federal government, they have the right, but they can rescind the power at any time. The federal government can have power over a national pledge if the states and people (by their representatives) decide to give them that power, but sovereignity in the issue will still lie with the people and states.

[AnthonyByakko]

No, no and no.

The federal government cannot have power that does not stem from the Constitution - hence the term 'unconstitutional' in regards to the Pledge. The people might want to cede certain rights to the federal government - and certainly we see examples everyday of people wishing for more nanny statism - but the people don't cede their rights to the federal government. The very idea of a "national pledge" goes against the grain of the document itself.

[hive_king]

Where does it say they can't cede power? (Keeping in mind that power and sovereignity are two different things)

[AnthonyByakko]

It doesn't say they can't cede power - in the same manner as no one officially says you can't fly by flapping your arms. But hey, you're free to try! The operative word in the former sentence is "can't" - as we have seen, regardless of whether it is constitutional or not, ignorant people will give their rights over to rulers who are all too eager for more power and control. This doesn't make it right, or for that matter, constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people "can't" give up their rights; the problem being that the people's rights are not a zero-sum game. YOU might want to give up a certain right, but I might be vehemently against giving it up. To create a national pledge inherently infringes upon the rights of some for the percieved benefit of the rights of others. This is the true unconstitutionality of a national pledge - moreso than its semantical incongruence with the document.

[hive_king]

Which right is being infringed on, exactly? Just to clarify the discussion.

[AnthonyByakko]

I don't want a national pledge. I have the right not to have one.

[hive_king]

So what if every other person in America but you wants one?

[AnthonyByakko]

You're f***ed.

[hive_king]

wait. who is f******? the one person who doesn't want the pledge, or everyone else who does?

(edited, had things backwards)

[AnthonyByakko]

Are you stupid? Obviously, you asked "if everyone but you wanted one" - so when I say "you're f***ed" I am, of course, talking about YOU.

[hive_king]

So one person can forstall the will of 3 million?

[AnthonyByakko]

3 million? There are about 300 million people in the U.S.

And the answer is yes. Not that such a situation would ever occur anyways, but I'll keep humouring you.

[hive_king]

So you're saying that the will of one person should be able to forstall the will of 3 million? That doesn't make sense and is contrary to the concept of democracy. Now it would make sense if a natural human right was involved, but in this case the seperation of powers is a legal right, not a natural right.

[AnthonyByakko]

That doesn't make sense and is contrary to the concept of democracy.

Hint: We're not a democracy.

Now it would make sense if a natural human right was involved,

All rights are natural.

[hive_king]

We are a representative republic, which is usually considered a type of democracy.

Under certain state law, during the civil war, the only surviving male of a family had the right to not be part of the state draft if he lost male family in the war. Some state law did not have that law. Did the only surviving male have or not have the right of draft exemption?

[jotabe]

Then, what would be the point of America?
I mean, America is a country that was founded on the basis of instituting individual freedom as supreme value. The fact that you have to pledge allegiance to your country means that you are not free to dislike your country and its laws, nor free to not give a care about it.

[AnthonyByakko]

We are a representative republic, which is usually considered a type of democracy.

Usually considered by whom? And since you qualify your statement with "usually", under what circumstances isn't it considered such?

Under certain state law, during the civil war, the only surviving male of a family had the right to not be part of the state draft if he lost male family in the war. Some state law did not have that law. Did the only surviving male have or not have the right of draft exemption?

So now it's not about the pledge, it's about the draft? Okay. Here's the answer: conscription is also unconstitutional. Have fun.

EDIT: Jota hit the nail on the head.