Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Friday, 27 November, 2020

The Flap Over the Pledge

Date: 01 July, 2002

By: Chief

Imageeople, politicians and the press are up in arms, madder than a wet hen if you will, over a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled, in essence, that mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. I agree. The Ninth based its decision on the separation of church and state doctrine. I disagree. Furthermore, the very next day after the decision was published the court held the decision in abeyance indefinitely. So much for an independent judiciary.

What has transpired is fraught with danger to individual liberty. The first reason is the pledge itself. The word allegiance is deadly to liberty, state and individual sovereignty. The second reason is the simple fact that separation of church and state does not exist under the Constitution. The third reason is the public loss of an independent court.

Now before you call for my beheading, allow me to explain my reasoning starting with the pledge of allegiance.

The pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"I pledge allegiance"

According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, abridged, allegiance is defined as:

"Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives."

Obedience, under Black's Law Dictionary, is defined as:

"Compliance with a command, prohibition, or known law and rule of duty prescribed. The performance of what is required or enjoined by authority, or the abstaining from what is prohibited, in compliance with the command or prohibition."

"[T]o the Flag"

You have just sworn an allegiance, an obedience, a subservience to the national government. Keep in mind, the flag is the official symbol of the national government (4USC §1 et seq.). Executive Order 10834, Section III, reads, in pertinent part:

"Sec. 31. The flag prescribed by Executive Order No. 10798 of January 3, 1959, shall be the official flag of the United States until July 4, 1960, and on that date the flag prescribed by Part I of this order shall become the official flag of the United States."

Additionally, or in one fell swoop, you have renounced:

You are now no longer a citizen, merely a subject. A subject to the whim of the Congress.

"[O]ne Nation under God"

What happened to the sovereignty of the several states? It is gone. Furthermore, what if I don't believe in god? There are people, quite a few of them, who do not believe in god.

"[I]ndivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Cannot be divided. No union of several states. No state sovereignty. No individual sovereignty. What the national government enacts is supreme. The Constitution is no more.

I have no problem with the concept of liberty and justice for all. However, under the laws enacted by congress, it cannot be a reality.

I think those reason are sufficient, though there are more. I, for one do, not recite the pledge.

On to the second reason.

The separation of church and state does not exist under the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in the 1950's, made up that doctrine out of whole cloth. While I do agree with the idea of keeping church separated from government, if there is no Constitutional prohibition the court erred and badly.

The doctrine itself was first credited to Thomas Jefferson during his presidency. In a letter Jefferson responded to a church or church group stating that a wall is needed to separate church from state.

So what Constitutional prohibition could a court use to rule the mandatory taking of the pledge is unconstitutional? How about the Ninth Amendment. The bedrock of individual liberty.

The Ninth Amendment reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Hence while you have the right to recite the pledge of allegiance, I have the right not to recite the pledge. As such, the mandatory recitation of the pledge falls short when compared to individual rights which apparently is something a lot of people have forgotten about.

Lastly is an independent judiciary. Justices and judges are placed upon the bench for the sole reason of rendering decisions. That is their job. Moreover, their job entails rendering decisions which may or may not be popular. Indeed controversial. Yet because of an emotional uproar by people, politicians and the press, the second highest court in the land suspended its decision. A dangerous precedent to be sure.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

". . .The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . .."

Simply put, just because a judge issues a ruling we don't like is no reason to impeach them. Period. Yet that is exactly what certain politicians are screaming for. Assemblyman Mike Briggs of California is one of these numerous idiots. He is introducing legislation requesting the Congress to commence impeachment proceedings against the judges in the case. What a fool.

At the same time, for a judge to back track on a decision he or she tendered is the epitome of cowardice. And cowardice, in my opinion, is not good behavior. Maybe they should be impeached, but not for rendering an unpopular decision. For cowardice. We need judges with a backbone.

As you have read, each of the reasons listed at the beginning of this piece is diametrically opposed to individual liberty. We are losing our liberty at an astonishing rate and most people don't seem to care. This is exactly what government wants. Why hand it to them on a silver platter? If government wants to take our liberty, make them work for it.

Don't be a slave to the government. Renounce the pledge and embrace the Constitution.

(Return to the top)