06-27-2002, 03:40 AM
06-27-2002, 04:37 AM
I love the politicians that will want to make a constitutional amendment out of this. Really I think it would kind of trivialize the Constitution to make an amendment about TWO FUCKING WORDS in a pledge.
06-27-2002, 04:39 AM
Quote:an amendment about TWO FUCKING WORDS
yeah like "abolish slavery"
06-27-2002, 05:01 AM
Yeah that amendment was a waste of time.
06-27-2002, 02:59 PM
OK, now I'm fucking confused. Yesterday the Federal Appeals court rules because of seperation of church and state we can't use Under god in the pledge. Today, the Supreme Court rules tax dollars can be used to fund religious schools. What the fuck? Seperation or not?
06-27-2002, 03:20 PM
Quote:Today, the Supreme Court rules tax dollars can be used to fund religious schools.Don't you remember all the faith based charities idea Mr. Bush had pre-9/11?
06-27-2002, 03:25 PM
What's funny is all the senators complaining that "God Bless America" and the third stanza of the national anthem can be banned under this ruling.
First time I saw the irony in congress protesting the actions of religious extremists by singing "God Bless America" on the steps of the capital.
First time I saw the irony in congress protesting the actions of religious extremists by singing "God Bless America" on the steps of the capital.
06-27-2002, 07:11 PM
what i forgot to mention, is that this ruling will never stand anyway...it's from Frisco, for [gov't edit] sakes. It will never stand up.
What is far more disturbing is today's Supreme Court ruling that allows random drug tests in schools for children:
High court approves random drug tests in public schools
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court approved random drug tests for many public high school students Thursday, ruling that schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
The 5-4 decision would allow the broadest drug testing the court has yet permitted for young people whom authorities have no particular reason to suspect of wrongdoing.
It applies to students who join competitive after-school activities or teams, a category that includes many if not most middle-school and high-school students.
Previously, these tests had been allowed only for student athletes.
The decision will allow the broadest testing ever allowed by the court for young people who have given authorities no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.
It applies to students who join competitive after-school activities or teams.
In the past, the tests have only been allowed for student athletes.
"We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for himself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.
The court stopped short of allowing random tests for any student, whether or not involved in extracurricular activities, but several justices have indicated they are interested in answering that question at some point.
The court ruled against a former Oklahoma high school honor student who competed on an academic quiz team and sang in the choir. Lindsay Earls, a self-described "goodie two-shoes," tested negative but sued over what she called a humiliating and accusatory policy.
The Pottawatomie County school system had considered testing all students. Instead, it settled for testing only those involved in extracurricular activities on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, those students had a lower expectation of privacy than did students at large.
What is far more disturbing is today's Supreme Court ruling that allows random drug tests in schools for children:
High court approves random drug tests in public schools
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court approved random drug tests for many public high school students Thursday, ruling that schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
The 5-4 decision would allow the broadest drug testing the court has yet permitted for young people whom authorities have no particular reason to suspect of wrongdoing.
It applies to students who join competitive after-school activities or teams, a category that includes many if not most middle-school and high-school students.
Previously, these tests had been allowed only for student athletes.
The decision will allow the broadest testing ever allowed by the court for young people who have given authorities no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.
It applies to students who join competitive after-school activities or teams.
In the past, the tests have only been allowed for student athletes.
"We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for himself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.
The court stopped short of allowing random tests for any student, whether or not involved in extracurricular activities, but several justices have indicated they are interested in answering that question at some point.
The court ruled against a former Oklahoma high school honor student who competed on an academic quiz team and sang in the choir. Lindsay Earls, a self-described "goodie two-shoes," tested negative but sued over what she called a humiliating and accusatory policy.
The Pottawatomie County school system had considered testing all students. Instead, it settled for testing only those involved in extracurricular activities on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, those students had a lower expectation of privacy than did students at large.
06-27-2002, 07:24 PM
Hey Goochie This might help
06-27-2002, 08:57 PM
Not if I'm connnecting it to the subject at hand.
06-28-2002, 03:43 AM
I'd love to do drug testing on young boys in school. Think they need a professional cock holder/shaker/sucker?
06-28-2002, 03:46 AM
Charter schools aren't religious schools
06-28-2002, 03:53 AM
Quote:Charter schools aren't religious schools
What's that got to do with me shaking the cocks of sweet smelling, untouched 9 year old boys?
06-28-2002, 03:55 AM
I don't acknowledge your pedophelia. According to AM, the CIA, ATF, Office of Homeland Security, and the Warren Commission are watching this board for such attrocities like that and filesharing.
So I'll just ignore it, and respond to what OAS said a few posts ago.
So I'll just ignore it, and respond to what OAS said a few posts ago.
06-28-2002, 03:57 AM
Quote:the Warren Commission are watching this board for such attrocities like that and filesharing.
Ohh i'm scared of the "magic bullet" people.
06-28-2002, 05:23 AM
Quote:what i forgot to mention, is that this ruling will never stand anyway...it's from Frisco, for [gov't edit] sakes. It will never stand up.
Its actually the most overturned court in the country. Its the court that rules that cross-dressers could seek asylum in this country...its one of the courts that doesn't allow its probation/parole officers to carry weapons in the field...its the court that stuck their foot in their mouth the day after they ruled...ughh....
06-30-2002, 04:27 AM
I just wanted to chime in on this as I just learned of it. This site is dedicated to this exact thing happening and I apologize if it has been posted, I did not read the entire thread. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://home.att.net/~poofcatt/july.html">http://home.att.net/~poofcatt/july.html</a><!-- m -->
To me, this is just catering to one individual or a small group of individuals rights. Land of the free my ass. Children should be given the choice to say it if they choose to or not. This is an example of taking away one groups rights (as they will no longer be able to say it in school) and granting the rights of a minority. Wouldn't a counter suit be feasible based on the fact alone that now they are discriminating against those that would like to say the pledge? I don't understand U.S. Citizens some times.
Edited By Jack Meehoff on June 30 2002 at 12:31
To me, this is just catering to one individual or a small group of individuals rights. Land of the free my ass. Children should be given the choice to say it if they choose to or not. This is an example of taking away one groups rights (as they will no longer be able to say it in school) and granting the rights of a minority. Wouldn't a counter suit be feasible based on the fact alone that now they are discriminating against those that would like to say the pledge? I don't understand U.S. Citizens some times.
Edited By Jack Meehoff on June 30 2002 at 12:31
06-30-2002, 06:59 AM
You have it all wrong. It isn't illegal. What has been ruled unconstitutional is the 1954 law of congress inserting the words under god. The point is not that kids are saying god in the classroom. They can say that all they want as that is their right. The point is that the government is pushing religion on children.
06-30-2002, 08:01 AM
I'm sorry... I didn't really think about it. I just found it rather trivial and juvenile that someone had to rule on that, waisting taxpayer's hard earned money. It's just 2 fucking words.. omit them or don't participate when it is recited.
06-30-2002, 12:59 PM
Hey it's more relevant than 99.9% of other court cases.