-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Supreme Court Upholds "Under God" in Pledge
- Thread starter Brown
- Start date
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
My jaw was dropping as I read this. I was amazed a decision had come out so soon but horrified by the result.
I went all the way to where Suddenly started talking about criminilizing those who don't say, "Under God" and then I woke up.
Well done. You got me.
Lurker
I went all the way to where Suddenly started talking about criminilizing those who don't say, "Under God" and then I woke up.
Well done. You got me.
Lurker
well 
Been some good pranks going on it seems. Howard Stern had a phony anouncement read by his general manager saying the show had been taken off of the air, and a phony show done in it's place for over an hour. A lot of people were taken in with that one.
Been some good pranks going on it seems. Howard Stern had a phony anouncement read by his general manager saying the show had been taken off of the air, and a phony show done in it's place for over an hour. A lot of people were taken in with that one.
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
Just in case anyone took this story seriously, you should know that it's a fake.
The Supreme Court typically takes months after oral argument to hand down a decision in a case. Because this case was argued just a few days ago, a decision on the merits handed down so quickly would be a real shocker. We can look for an actual decision in June.
My goal was to start the story in a plausible fashion, then pile on the absurdities. I was pretty sure that anybody who read "The First Amendment is unconstitutional" would realize that I was kidding. (The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, of course, and therefore cannot be unconstitutional.) But just in case, I included a link to an information site about April Fool jokes.
Some of the post was somewhat serious. For example, it seems to me to be a reasonable possibility that, if "under God" is allowed to remain, it might be permissible to urge school kids to sing "God Bless America" (and I wouldn't put it past some people to put pressure on public schools to do just that).
It also can happen that the Supreme Court agrees on a decision but a majority of the Court cannot agree on a rationale. In that case, the Court announces its "judgment of the Court," and the lawyers are left to puzzle over what precedents have been set. (When a majority of the Court agrees on a rationale, the Court announces its "opinion of the Court").
If this little fake story caused anyone to have a conniption or lose bowel control, then all I can say is, "April fool, ha, ha, got you!"
The Supreme Court typically takes months after oral argument to hand down a decision in a case. Because this case was argued just a few days ago, a decision on the merits handed down so quickly would be a real shocker. We can look for an actual decision in June.
My goal was to start the story in a plausible fashion, then pile on the absurdities. I was pretty sure that anybody who read "The First Amendment is unconstitutional" would realize that I was kidding. (The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, of course, and therefore cannot be unconstitutional.) But just in case, I included a link to an information site about April Fool jokes.
Some of the post was somewhat serious. For example, it seems to me to be a reasonable possibility that, if "under God" is allowed to remain, it might be permissible to urge school kids to sing "God Bless America" (and I wouldn't put it past some people to put pressure on public schools to do just that).
It also can happen that the Supreme Court agrees on a decision but a majority of the Court cannot agree on a rationale. In that case, the Court announces its "judgment of the Court," and the lawyers are left to puzzle over what precedents have been set. (When a majority of the Court agrees on a rationale, the Court announces its "opinion of the Court").
If this little fake story caused anyone to have a conniption or lose bowel control, then all I can say is, "April fool, ha, ha, got you!"
Brown said:
I've often wondered about this. This is purely hypothetical of course, but would it be possible for the Supreme Court to rule that part of the Constitution itself was unconstitutional (e.g. self-contradictory)? Suppose there was a new amendment whose wording was poorly chosen, or something like that. Could that be "struck down?"
Similarly, could a Constitutional amendment be held to be "unconstitutionally vague?"
Jeremy
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
Great question, and a hard one to answer.toddjh said:
In theory, what's in the Constitution is the law of the land. The Court has determined that it has the power to hold statutes unconstitutional, but it can't declare the Constitution unconstitutional.
If there is a conflict between Constitutional provisions, there are a lot of ways the Court could resolve it. For example, the Court might look to the rationales for the respective provisions, or give the more specific provision force over the general provision, or treat one provision as an exception to the other.
To illustrate: Some people have been talking about an amendment to prohibit flag burning. Now, that amendment is not a very good idea for a lot of reasons, but suppose it got adopted. The Court might say that First Amendment rights are all still valid, just like they were before, except in the isolated case of flag desecration. But the Court could not strike down the flag burning amendment as unconstitutional.