Um....have you forgotten about the Roberts Court? The Constitution is no longer the supreme foundation of our Rule of Law, it's really more of a bunch of suggested ideas from people who had no idea just how bloody fucking ๐พ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฌ 'Merica would get.
The Bible is the only religion you're allowed to freely worship.ยน
You ๐พ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ณ recite the Liberty Incantationยฒ with gusto and prideยณ otherwise the Magic Skycloth won't spew Freedomโด.
You ๐พ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ณ recite the prayer. Period.โต
Also, hamberders and covfefe are the official school lunch now.โถ
(ยน Assuming you've chosen the correct flavor of Christianity....think "Two Corinthians...")
(ยฒ Written by a Socialist Baptist minister as an advertising jungle to sell flags to schoolchildren.)
(ยณ Not ๐กโ๐๐ก kind of pride, those are Yahweh's rainbows.)
(โด And that's how the godless commie bastards win.)
(โต Both Yahweh and Orange God require your undivided attention. Don't make that 14-year-old varsity nose guard who casually tosses bales up into the hay loft have a ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ with you out behind the barn. The poor dear doesn't know too many words.)
Aye, that's rrrrrright, lass! Arrrrrg.....grog.....popping on deck.....{crap, what are some other pirate words, something about really cold logs or frozen lumber or some such....shit, it'll come to me}....rum! Yeah, flagon o' rrrrum! Eat your citrus!
With a bought and keep on retainer SCOTUS majority who knows what the Constitution will mean in the near future. There is absolutely NO basis for the immunity ruling and it fact under historical precedent the founders chose NOT to include it for the executive. Most came to American to get away from kings and theocracy. (Based on 40+ years law practice)
I can see the parental permission bit being allowed by SCOTUS. They are minors; requiring parental/guarding permission for a lot of things is just standard practice.
However I agree the 'you must stand, hand on heart' thing seems to be a flagrant violation of freedom of expression and of precedent. Courts ruling 'you don't have to do this' directly implies that they mean 'you don't have to do *any* similar, replacement, or proxy expression of the same sentiment.'
Those rights are limited in public school settings because the government is coercing each child to be in social contact with people they might not otherwise choose to associate with.
This is the "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose" principle: because kids are *forced* to be in school together, their right to express themselves or their religion ends when it imposes on the right of the kids *who are forced to be in the room with them*, to be free of that religious expression. Which means you can't necessarily express yourself or your religious views in school the way that would be protected on a street corner.
But be that as it may, since 1943 AFAIK the courts have generally agreed that a kid doesn't need a permission slip to not say the pledge. However with THIS court being as conservative as it is, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they upheld that part. I do not think they will uphold required standing or required hand on heart, because even for this court I think that's a bit of a bridge too far.
Forced performative nonsense patriotism is the kind the current MAGA crowd seems to like best, really. It's got everything: they look like authority figures, it makes people they don't like anyway unhappy, it kowtows to a nationalist cult mindset, and everyone knows on some level it's meaningless drivel. Honestly, I'd be more surprised if they didn't love it.
The Moms for Liberty/We Hate Trans folks are always going on about "parental rights". Seems parents ought to have the right to decide their kids don't need to stand with hand on chest.
Yeah, but they can make any law doing whatever they like and wait till someone challenges it. In the meantime, some of those kids go through school being forces to do it.
Personally, I'd much rather recite the Preamble to the Constitution instead of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's short, simple, and sums up what our nation is supposed to be about.
Yes, I remember having to memorize that in 5th grade, the first of three times I was required to take US history (the others were 8th and 11th. Civics and Government was required in 12th grade. We had to spend 6 months writing a constitution for a hypothetical country, that year. The only limit the teacher put on our work was "in that country, you don't get to know who you will be." The discussions among the students were amazing! This was in 1969-70.)
We do have a few interesting things in this article.
First, my own point of view. I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance in over 40 years, and I will not say it, except perhaps at the point of a gun. And that very real possibility, that someone would feel entitled to cause that to happen, and be justified in the law, is precisely why I will not say it. Now, when other people want to say it, I will stand with them, but only because Iโm a nice guy, and donโt want to be disrespectful to other peopleโs beliefs, as long as they are respectable beliefs.
Why will I not say the pledge? Above all, because as a gay man, I have watched the people who want to use the pledge as a clubโ Just like their spiritual brothers who wished to use the Bible as a clubโ Debate my right to exist in society and participate fully and its benefits for no other reason because they cannot stop thinking about whatever it is they believe to be my sex life. My existence and my participation in society are neither of them open to debate, especially when the debate is all about lies, bigotry, and despite.
When there is no longer a debate in this country about my worth as a human being, we can talk about the pledge. As long as I am what I amโ a citizen, a law abiding, tax paying, contributing member of societyโ whose worth as to all of those things is open for debate because someone doesnโt like my sex life, Iโll not be willing to say the pledge.
Thatโs the main issue. But there is another one. The flag is a piece of cloth, decorated in a particular way. It is not democracy, freedom, morality, or anything Like them. It is a symbol, and as a symbol, it is whatever people believe it to be. Authoritarians just love symbols, and they are as addicted to symbols as the most far out junkie is addicted to heroin. Sorry not sorry, but Iโm not a junkie. And as I already said, unless you have a gun pointed in my direction, your symbols are your own.
And this Brings us to the other Issue, tying my previous paragraphs together. During the wedding cake wars, conservatives claimed that โforcingโ a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding was in fact coerced speech. No one should be coerced into making speech that he disagrees with. And yet, here they are, defying what they claim are their principles, defying what they claim the flag actually stands forโ freedomโ in favor of coercing speech.
Coercing speech simply is the opposite of what they claim the flag stands for. And it reveals their weakness.
Check me on this, but wasn't there a court case that went all the way to SCOTUS about forcing recitation of the Pledge? I also seem to recall that Hemant's series on the Pledge of Allegiance included mention of that case. Yet North Dakota wants to (once again) waste time and money (and some good will, to boot) attempting to coerce students into saying the Pledge each day.
As Iโve said before (and others before me): itโs (also) about exhausting the resources of people who actually care for America and fight this stupidity.
It doesnโt matter. The whole concept of โdecided lawโ Stare Decicis is gone. These Supremes are willing to usher in a new world order to control โThose Peopleโ - meaning anyone not wanting to be bound by white christianist privilege.
You beat me to it. I remember this exact same thing happening in the late 1960s when I was in junior high and high school. I served a couple of detentions for not standing for the pledge (along with a bunch of other kids--this was in 8th grade) til the school district got it into their thick skulls that They Couldn't Do That. Some people never learn. And everything old is new again.
1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The SCOTUS ruling includes the famous line "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion"
However it was 6-3, so even back then this wasn't a slam dunk. The court we have now is more conservative.
Also from my very limited understanding, the whole topic of permission slips just didn't come up and wasn't addressed by SCOTUS. The 'no permission required to exercise my freedom of expression' came later, from lower courts. So SCOTUS could take THAT question up and rule conservatively even if they wanted to keep Barnette intact.
Presumably, they're trying to get a new one to SCOTUS, understanding the difference between SCOTUS then and SCOTUS now.
Put a case like that in front of the current Court, and there's a measurable chance we'll have a mandatory daily oath to the sitting President. To him personally, not the country or the office.
Of course, the law is automatically unconstitutional under West Virginia SBOE v. Barnette, which in a previous pledge case in the middle of WWII, held that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodix in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
If only these Republican legislators were to pass a basic Civics class before they were allowed to take office, we might be saved from the enactment of such unconstitutional statutes.
The goal is to overturn that case with the new Christian Nationalist Supreme Court. It bans forced religion and compelled speech and conservatives can't have that.
It's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds. It's as though they think that the parents own the kids. Requiring kids whose parents have opted them out to still go through all the motions short of actually mouthing the words shows that they aren't really interested in anything other than forcing strict obedience.
This was declared unconstitutional in 1943. Do you think the ND NSGOP is looking for a case to overturn WV v Barnette? Or are they just stupidly focusing on their desire to force everyone to obey them?
Do you really think thereโs a single Republican politician that knows US history enough to be able to address the actual court case? Or even know that their bill is wildly unconstitutional?
They might not all be convinced of Jewish space lasers, but most of them are too ignorant to do their jobs, and those that arenโt, are too greedy and corrupt to work for the people.
So, a vote for just stupidly focusing on theier desire to force obedience. I am inclined to agree, but there has to be at least one who IS aware enough of our history and really hates that people have more rights.
There are no precedents now. They have done a hard reset on constitutional law and you can bet they will pull more English Common Law and other nonsense out of Alitoโs ass to justify anything required to bring about the overthrow of our Republic. edit for typo.
โIt's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds.โ More to the point, theyโre terrified that the โkidsโ are both able and willing to think for themselves. Thatโs what they want to suppress.
Further Thought: Once the government uses coercion to compel an action, particularly one which has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION, that government will likely feel free to coerce all sorts of other actions.
This can include but not be limited to prayer and loyalty oaths, and regarding the latter, particularly to a certain Orange Orangutan.
Or worse, the pledge includes the phrase: โFor I swear that my life is yours to command in all my actions and thoughts or until death takes me in your serviceโ. Or some similar claptrap. Oh boy, better not give them ideas!
How about making it compulsory to enforce strict gun laws so children donโt have to be murdered, maimed and terrified to go to school!? The compulsory Pledge of Allegiance means nothing
It is clear that the North Dakota Republicans who proposed this abomination believe that they not only can prescribe orthodoxy of opinion, but that they MUST. Their poor attempt at submitting fundamental rights to the vote, by allowing parents the ability to opt their children out of mouthing the words while doing everything else according to their mandate, shows that they want parents to identify their "disloyalty" and that children have absolutely zero rights.
And just as Trumpublicans want to deny women freedom of choice, they want to do the same for kids and the Pledge. This resembles democracy about as well as a hole in the head.
โAnd frankly, our country isnโt always one that deserves admiration. Why would we want to โpledge allegianceโ to a nation that is so often a global embarrassment?โ
The reason theyโre forcing this is because they know damned well that the country will become an ever bigger embarrassment in the coming years. And once they get this shoved down our throats, theyโll make more pledges (or change this one) that force us to be loyal to Tangerine Tojo. And soon we will be marching in the streets is Jack boots and snitching on our neighbors for speaking bad about the government.
Not a slippery slope, itโs what has happened before.
Forgive my question, please, but is this the most important issue for North Dakota? Have they sorted all the other problems such as healthcare, homelessness, poor nutrition and environmental issues?
Thatโs a stupid question, Claudia! Of course not!
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need is to simply say is 'Yes' or 'No.' Anything beyond this comes from the evil one"
-- Matthew 5:34-37
Oops. You folks in North Dakota don't read your bibles, do ya?
This is a clear First Amendment violation, and no state law can override the Constitution. See: Supremacy Clause.
Um....have you forgotten about the Roberts Court? The Constitution is no longer the supreme foundation of our Rule of Law, it's really more of a bunch of suggested ideas from people who had no idea just how bloody fucking ๐พ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฌ 'Merica would get.
The Bible is the only religion you're allowed to freely worship.ยน
You ๐พ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ณ recite the Liberty Incantationยฒ with gusto and prideยณ otherwise the Magic Skycloth won't spew Freedomโด.
You ๐พ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ณ recite the prayer. Period.โต
Also, hamberders and covfefe are the official school lunch now.โถ
(ยน Assuming you've chosen the correct flavor of Christianity....think "Two Corinthians...")
(ยฒ Written by a Socialist Baptist minister as an advertising jungle to sell flags to schoolchildren.)
(ยณ Not ๐กโ๐๐ก kind of pride, those are Yahweh's rainbows.)
(โด And that's how the godless commie bastards win.)
(โต Both Yahweh and Orange God require your undivided attention. Don't make that 14-year-old varsity nose guard who casually tosses bales up into the hay loft have a ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ with you out behind the barn. The poor dear doesn't know too many words.)
(โถ Deal with it, vegans.)
So, you're saying it's more like The Pirate Code?
Aye, that's rrrrrright, lass! Arrrrrg.....grog.....popping on deck.....{crap, what are some other pirate words, something about really cold logs or frozen lumber or some such....shit, it'll come to me}....rum! Yeah, flagon o' rrrrum! Eat your citrus!
"And ye must be an actual pirate for the code to apply, and it's more like guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Red Court. Make sail!"
With a bought and keep on retainer SCOTUS majority who knows what the Constitution will mean in the near future. There is absolutely NO basis for the immunity ruling and it fact under historical precedent the founders chose NOT to include it for the executive. Most came to American to get away from kings and theocracy. (Based on 40+ years law practice)
Not in the Theofascist States of America. The Constitution is only a suggestion.
I can see the parental permission bit being allowed by SCOTUS. They are minors; requiring parental/guarding permission for a lot of things is just standard practice.
However I agree the 'you must stand, hand on heart' thing seems to be a flagrant violation of freedom of expression and of precedent. Courts ruling 'you don't have to do this' directly implies that they mean 'you don't have to do *any* similar, replacement, or proxy expression of the same sentiment.'
Children have free speech and religion rights. Those do not require parental permission.
That said, the Calvinball Court views children as property, no different than a car.
Those rights are limited in public school settings because the government is coercing each child to be in social contact with people they might not otherwise choose to associate with.
This is the "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose" principle: because kids are *forced* to be in school together, their right to express themselves or their religion ends when it imposes on the right of the kids *who are forced to be in the room with them*, to be free of that religious expression. Which means you can't necessarily express yourself or your religious views in school the way that would be protected on a street corner.
But be that as it may, since 1943 AFAIK the courts have generally agreed that a kid doesn't need a permission slip to not say the pledge. However with THIS court being as conservative as it is, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they upheld that part. I do not think they will uphold required standing or required hand on heart, because even for this court I think that's a bit of a bridge too far.
Stealing โCalvinball Courtโ - will happily provide attribution.
Forced patriotism, especially as applied to underaged kids, is performative nonsense.
Forced performative nonsense patriotism is the kind the current MAGA crowd seems to like best, really. It's got everything: they look like authority figures, it makes people they don't like anyway unhappy, it kowtows to a nationalist cult mindset, and everyone knows on some level it's meaningless drivel. Honestly, I'd be more surprised if they didn't love it.
The MAGA version is what I call fake-triotism.
The Moms for Liberty/We Hate Trans folks are always going on about "parental rights". Seems parents ought to have the right to decide their kids don't need to stand with hand on chest.
Those arenโt the rights they mean.
Yep, their right to make decisions for everyone's children.
Yeah, but they can make any law doing whatever they like and wait till someone challenges it. In the meantime, some of those kids go through school being forces to do it.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Get that into your thick skulls you fucking fascists.
Nothing says how free we are by being forced to say a loyalty oath to the State every day, children.
Personally, I'd much rather recite the Preamble to the Constitution instead of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's short, simple, and sums up what our nation is supposed to be about.
๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ผ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ผ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฑ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐พ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ณ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ช๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ผ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐.
https://youtu.be/RtGc69HQY4k?feature=shared
Conservatives don't want kids to know that the government exists to promote the general welfare. That's socialist atheist commie talk!
Yes, I remember having to memorize that in 5th grade, the first of three times I was required to take US history (the others were 8th and 11th. Civics and Government was required in 12th grade. We had to spend 6 months writing a constitution for a hypothetical country, that year. The only limit the teacher put on our work was "in that country, you don't get to know who you will be." The discussions among the students were amazing! This was in 1969-70.)
That's a good alternative, although for me, I don't think I could say it without singing the Schoolhouse Rock version. ๐
That's not just unconstitutional, it's antithetical to our American values.
Compulsory patriotism isn't patriotism.
Thatโs why they like it
We do have a few interesting things in this article.
First, my own point of view. I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance in over 40 years, and I will not say it, except perhaps at the point of a gun. And that very real possibility, that someone would feel entitled to cause that to happen, and be justified in the law, is precisely why I will not say it. Now, when other people want to say it, I will stand with them, but only because Iโm a nice guy, and donโt want to be disrespectful to other peopleโs beliefs, as long as they are respectable beliefs.
Why will I not say the pledge? Above all, because as a gay man, I have watched the people who want to use the pledge as a clubโ Just like their spiritual brothers who wished to use the Bible as a clubโ Debate my right to exist in society and participate fully and its benefits for no other reason because they cannot stop thinking about whatever it is they believe to be my sex life. My existence and my participation in society are neither of them open to debate, especially when the debate is all about lies, bigotry, and despite.
When there is no longer a debate in this country about my worth as a human being, we can talk about the pledge. As long as I am what I amโ a citizen, a law abiding, tax paying, contributing member of societyโ whose worth as to all of those things is open for debate because someone doesnโt like my sex life, Iโll not be willing to say the pledge.
Thatโs the main issue. But there is another one. The flag is a piece of cloth, decorated in a particular way. It is not democracy, freedom, morality, or anything Like them. It is a symbol, and as a symbol, it is whatever people believe it to be. Authoritarians just love symbols, and they are as addicted to symbols as the most far out junkie is addicted to heroin. Sorry not sorry, but Iโm not a junkie. And as I already said, unless you have a gun pointed in my direction, your symbols are your own.
And this Brings us to the other Issue, tying my previous paragraphs together. During the wedding cake wars, conservatives claimed that โforcingโ a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding was in fact coerced speech. No one should be coerced into making speech that he disagrees with. And yet, here they are, defying what they claim are their principles, defying what they claim the flag actually stands forโ freedomโ in favor of coercing speech.
Coercing speech simply is the opposite of what they claim the flag stands for. And it reveals their weakness.
They are symbol junkies.
BRAVISSIMO!!! I stand with you as a Gay man.
Thanks.
Ah yes, let's single out people who don't want to pledge for religious or personal reasons so they can be harassed. Great way to show freedom.
Plus, a convenient list of subversive parents.
Check me on this, but wasn't there a court case that went all the way to SCOTUS about forcing recitation of the Pledge? I also seem to recall that Hemant's series on the Pledge of Allegiance included mention of that case. Yet North Dakota wants to (once again) waste time and money (and some good will, to boot) attempting to coerce students into saying the Pledge each day.
The stupid ... it gets tiresome ... FAST.
As Iโve said before (and others before me): itโs (also) about exhausting the resources of people who actually care for America and fight this stupidity.
Edit for typo.
It doesnโt matter. The whole concept of โdecided lawโ Stare Decicis is gone. These Supremes are willing to usher in a new world order to control โThose Peopleโ - meaning anyone not wanting to be bound by white christianist privilege.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. 1943. In the middle of WWII when real patriotism was at its highest.
You beat me to it. I remember this exact same thing happening in the late 1960s when I was in junior high and high school. I served a couple of detentions for not standing for the pledge (along with a bunch of other kids--this was in 8th grade) til the school district got it into their thick skulls that They Couldn't Do That. Some people never learn. And everything old is new again.
New Orange god, new rules.
1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The SCOTUS ruling includes the famous line "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion"
However it was 6-3, so even back then this wasn't a slam dunk. The court we have now is more conservative.
Also from my very limited understanding, the whole topic of permission slips just didn't come up and wasn't addressed by SCOTUS. The 'no permission required to exercise my freedom of expression' came later, from lower courts. So SCOTUS could take THAT question up and rule conservatively even if they wanted to keep Barnette intact.
Presumably, they're trying to get a new one to SCOTUS, understanding the difference between SCOTUS then and SCOTUS now.
Put a case like that in front of the current Court, and there's a measurable chance we'll have a mandatory daily oath to the sitting President. To him personally, not the country or the office.
Of course, the law is automatically unconstitutional under West Virginia SBOE v. Barnette, which in a previous pledge case in the middle of WWII, held that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodix in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
If only these Republican legislators were to pass a basic Civics class before they were allowed to take office, we might be saved from the enactment of such unconstitutional statutes.
The goal is to overturn that case with the new Christian Nationalist Supreme Court. It bans forced religion and compelled speech and conservatives can't have that.
My guess is that they've never been required to actually take (not to mention, pass) a basic high-school-level civics class.
๐ผ๐ ๐ โ๐๐๐ก, ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐ก๐โ๐คโ๐๐โ ๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐ก ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐, ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐.๐ผ๐ ๐ โ๐๐๐ก, ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐ก๐โ๐คโ๐๐โ ๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐ก ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐, ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐.
It's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds. It's as though they think that the parents own the kids. Requiring kids whose parents have opted them out to still go through all the motions short of actually mouthing the words shows that they aren't really interested in anything other than forcing strict obedience.
This was declared unconstitutional in 1943. Do you think the ND NSGOP is looking for a case to overturn WV v Barnette? Or are they just stupidly focusing on their desire to force everyone to obey them?
Do you really think thereโs a single Republican politician that knows US history enough to be able to address the actual court case? Or even know that their bill is wildly unconstitutional?
They might not all be convinced of Jewish space lasers, but most of them are too ignorant to do their jobs, and those that arenโt, are too greedy and corrupt to work for the people.
So, a vote for just stupidly focusing on theier desire to force obedience. I am inclined to agree, but there has to be at least one who IS aware enough of our history and really hates that people have more rights.
There are no precedents now. They have done a hard reset on constitutional law and you can bet they will pull more English Common Law and other nonsense out of Alitoโs ass to justify anything required to bring about the overthrow of our Republic. edit for typo.
โIt's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds.โ More to the point, theyโre terrified that the โkidsโ are both able and willing to think for themselves. Thatโs what they want to suppress.
Further Thought: Once the government uses coercion to compel an action, particularly one which has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION, that government will likely feel free to coerce all sorts of other actions.
This can include but not be limited to prayer and loyalty oaths, and regarding the latter, particularly to a certain Orange Orangutan.
It's a safe bet that at least one of them is champing at the bit to insert "and President for Life Trump" somewhere in the pledge.
Or worse, the pledge includes the phrase: โFor I swear that my life is yours to command in all my actions and thoughts or until death takes me in your serviceโ. Or some similar claptrap. Oh boy, better not give them ideas!
How about making it compulsory to enforce strict gun laws so children donโt have to be murdered, maimed and terrified to go to school!? The compulsory Pledge of Allegiance means nothing
๐บ๐๐๐๐ ๐ต๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Fuck them kids. ~ Trumpublicans
A lot of them literally do that anyway. See: child marriage.
No tassels on guns.
Hello Kitty Bang Bang
https://www.reddit.com/r/Glocks/comments/17lq7mu/hello_kitty/#lightbox
Oh, I was expecting other Hello Kitty accessories.
"I filled that kitty cat so full of lead, we'll have to use her for a pencil instead."
Mixed message, there.
To quote the old joke:
Republicans reply to โfuck those kidsโ is โDo you think we have timeโ?
"One way to find out....." ;-)
From Justice Jackson's majority opinion in WV v Barnette:
๐๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ฒ๐น๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ผ ๐ผ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น, ๐ต๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐๐๐, ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐น๐น ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐, ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ, ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ป.
Elsewhere in the same opinion:
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐ฟ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐๐ฏ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐, ๐๐ผ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ผ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ท๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ ๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐๐. ๐ข๐ป๐ฒ'๐ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ ๐๐ผ ๐น๐ถ๐ณ๐ฒ, ๐น๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐, ๐๐ผ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต, ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐, ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฏ๐น๐, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฏ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ; ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ผ๐๐๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ป๐ผ ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐.
It is clear that the North Dakota Republicans who proposed this abomination believe that they not only can prescribe orthodoxy of opinion, but that they MUST. Their poor attempt at submitting fundamental rights to the vote, by allowing parents the ability to opt their children out of mouthing the words while doing everything else according to their mandate, shows that they want parents to identify their "disloyalty" and that children have absolutely zero rights.
๐โ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐โ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐โ๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐.
-- David Hume
And just as Trumpublicans want to deny women freedom of choice, they want to do the same for kids and the Pledge. This resembles democracy about as well as a hole in the head.
"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."
-- Major Frank Burns
Sorry (not sorry), Ferret Face. Not happening here. Probably not happening on this site, either.
I'd tell Frank to go boohoo to Hot Lips, but I doubt she's having any more of his crap.
โAnd frankly, our country isnโt always one that deserves admiration. Why would we want to โpledge allegianceโ to a nation that is so often a global embarrassment?โ
The reason theyโre forcing this is because they know damned well that the country will become an ever bigger embarrassment in the coming years. And once they get this shoved down our throats, theyโll make more pledges (or change this one) that force us to be loyal to Tangerine Tojo. And soon we will be marching in the streets is Jack boots and snitching on our neighbors for speaking bad about the government.
Not a slippery slope, itโs what has happened before.
Forgive my question, please, but is this the most important issue for North Dakota? Have they sorted all the other problems such as healthcare, homelessness, poor nutrition and environmental issues?
Thatโs a stupid question, Claudia! Of course not!
(Goes off to research North Dakotaโฆโฆ)
Is this the most important issue for North Dakota? No.
Is reelection rhetoric the most important issue for North Dakotan legislators? In most cases, yes.
Hmmm. What would Jesus say?
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need is to simply say is 'Yes' or 'No.' Anything beyond this comes from the evil one"
-- Matthew 5:34-37
Oops. You folks in North Dakota don't read your bibles, do ya?
And yet, there are other places in the Bible which require swearing oaths.
You donโt know whether your left hand or your right hand should go over your heart.
But I will say this much. I will not swear on any book. And this is one of the places I agree with Jesus. Either my word is good enough or it is not.