Forcing Americans To Take An Oath Of Loyalty To The United States Is Constitutional

The American Civil Liberties Union is at it again in Florida. This time they have decided to champion the case of a high school junior who was forced to stand for the pledge of allegiance. He claims the teacher berated and ridiculed him for his refusal. The law that is being challenge requires all students to stand and recite the pledge. It allows the child’s parent to sign a waver form that can exempt them from reciting the pledge but they still have to stand.

The ACLU claimed the student said "Patriotism is more than going along with everybody else and just saluting a flag. It's about things like supporting our troops during the holidays and helping hurricane victims." Contrary to the ACLU's view a political act of rebellion does not grant you immunity to the law under the Constitution. If it did so then you could speed and not be ticketed, or hold up someone and not go to jail, as long as you claimed you disagreed with the law. The question is if the law was put into place for a good reason. The Constitution requires Judges to take an oath to uphold the Constitution which corresponds with saying the pledge of allegiance. A marriage oath is proven to instill more faithfulness to ones significant other than just cohabitating.

I do see to legitimate objections the first is religion as some religions would hold saying the pledge was making a promise while others would hold the flag as being an idol. The second is emancipation. Minors are emancipated by law as soon as they turn 18 and no longer need a parents permissions. Other minors are emancipated by judges or by marriage. I see no evidence that the student in this situation meets any of those qualifications.

The ACLU states "Our Legislature should have wiped this law off the books," and "It constitutes bad advice." This shows more the attitude of the ACLU toward loyalty to the United States than anything else. It sure does not show a knowledge of Constitutional law.

I do have one final point to make though, which is that an oath made under duress is not legally binding.

The Effects Of The Assault On The Right To Life In The United States

An Idaho man was charged with killing his three kids because their quality of life was lowered after he and his wife divorced. That sounds like a argument that combines the justification for euthanasia with the evidence pro-marriage advocates use to prove why supporting strong marriages is the best policy.

The ACLU is an advocate of the “right to die” issue even to entering friend of the court brief defending a lower court who determined the due process of law provision covered the “right to die”. The cases covered were from Washington and New York.

The ACLU’s policy is to push the envelope as far as the can on the so called “right to life”. In her commentary Futile Care: The Terri Schiavo Case Diane Alden states “The list of "quality of life" standards is growing. It is a list consisting of elements on the slippery slope from being humane to being rid of the unwanted. It has evolved from simply withholding heroic efforts to save a brain-dead or terminal human to a laundry list of whether or not we are costly to maintain, unproductive, dependent, burdensome, poor or depressed.” I believe that the goal of the ACLU is to advance the elite liberal eugenicist goal of getting rid of all those they view as unfit. The left are thus marketing that worldview to the people of the United States, who previously rejected it after seeing the horrors of Nazi Germany. I saw a Star Trek show that advocated assisted suicide even when the person was a financial burden to their family. It makes me wonder if the Logan’s Run scenario of people past a certain age being put to death, is not where we are heading in the United States.

Divorce is proven to harm children and thus reduce their quality of life as is concluded by the report “An Exploration of the Ramifications of Divorce on Children and Adolescents” by Sara Eleoff. Part of her conclusion was “Divorce and its ensuing ramifications can have a significant and life-altering impact on the well being and subsequent development of children and adolescents.”

Now combining what is known about the harmful effects of divorce and the worldview advocated by the ACLU and their allies Jim Junior Nice made a rational and compassionate decision. The ACLU’s goal seems to be to recreate the vast majority of the people of the United States in the image Mr. Nice. I stand against such rationalizing, and with the founders of the United States in their support of everyone’s right to life.

The ACLU Violates The Natural Human Rights Of Americans

The United States Constitution states that its purpose is to insure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The greatest of those blessings is marriage, whose benefits to individuals and society are well known and proved. The benefits are so well known that when the United States entered the United Nations Charter through treaty, we agreed that the goal of a free society was to encourage marriage and support the family unit. This agreement took the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and addresses these issues in Article 16, where marriage is described as a union between a man an a woman in Section 1. In Section 3 it states it is entitled to protection by the state. I cite Article 16 below for reference.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

In Michigan and several other states, cohabitation is illegal though seldom enforced. These laws are obviously put into place in order to support the family unit. However, This law is used to keep a divorced father's live in girlfriend away on the nights he has custody of his children. The ACLU is up in arms stating this in unconstitutional. I wonder what Constitution the ACLU is referring to since the Constitution of the United States does not act contrary to the general welfare of the American people nor does it support immoral behavior that is proved harmful to individuals.

The ACLU director complains that the law allows the state to interfere with the relationship between parents and their children. Yet the ACLU supports the state interfering between parents and their children in the case when parental consent is required for their child seeking an abortion. Their support of abortion is another way the ACLU violates human rights as arbitrarily and deliberately killing children through abortion is a direct violation of Article 25:2 that states that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.

The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to overthrow a government that is destructive of our natural human rights and install in its place a new one that is more likely to effect our happiness and safety. If we can do this to our government, we can do it to a corrupt organization like the ACLU.

Congress Acts To Protect The Right To Life While Senator Clinton Objects

Here is an article by lifenews.com that tell of a bill before Congress that would defund Planned Parenthood. Hiliary Clinton is against the bill because she states that it would cause an increase in abortions. The hypothesis is the higher the use of contraceptives the lower the rate of abortion. It sounds sensible but I do not know of any study that backs it up. What I do know is that she also claims that because President Bush is not full funding family planning. I also know that according to another National Center For Health Statistics the percentage of births that were unplanned has increased. This brings me to the conclusion that further defunding of Planned Parenthood will decrease abortions rather than increase them as Hilliary Clinton claims. This makes sense since I believe Planned Parenthood and the rest of the Birth Control Movement target minorities and poor whites.

Democrats always say they are for human rights but according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and deserves protection. Abortion is an attack on that family unit as motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. If Medicare funds are to go to family planning then it needs to be in compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and go to an family friendly institute that does not support abortion.

A Plea For Freedom From Religious Opression

The established atheist religion won another case in the United States when the following happened according to this excerpt from an article from Martha Raffaelle.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

The question before the judge that he did not consider was if the state had the right to back the belief that that the hypothesis was no intelligence behind creation however it occurred was in doubt. He decided that the hypothesis was a fact and thus backed up the Atheistic establishment of the United States.

It is clearly evident that his ruling violated the Constitution because forcing anyone to embrace the Atheistic theory of creation violates the free exercise of religion. The question becomes how interested the People of America are in fighting for their rights. If you are now willing to fight to the death then you will loose them as tyrants are seldom dissuaded by anything else but the use of power and determination.

I am considering how to sue my community for violating the Constitution of the United States by establishing Atheism as the state religion. I see nothing more likely to bring relief from oppression but I need support to do so. Without support my plan is doomed to failure and the more support the greater the chance of the American People for victory.

Marriage A Right To Pursue Happiness Issue

Marriage is an important relationship to our culture as violent crime increases dramatically as the rate of marriage decreases. This is the best argument for homosexual marriages though I question whether you can apply the data of heterosexual marriages to marriage formed based on an immoral concept.

Now here is an article that rates the happiness of individuals compared with the type of relationship they are in and no one should really be surprised at the results. Their conclusion that having a romantic relationship made both men and women more happier overall and the more committed the relationship the happier the individuals. It seems strange that the sexual freedom boasted of by the sexual revolution of the left is more oppressive to human being than the marital fidelity urged by the religious right. For those who are in doubt the religious right includes Christians, Jews, Moslems, and any other religion including Atheist that cleave to the ideal to love your neighbor as yourself.

The study found that as the relationship became more committed the happiness grew but that individuals with least happiness were the more likely to pursue greater happiness by moving into committed relationships, It sounds like these scientist are saying abstinence before marriage is the best policy. Pro choicers must really hate them for that.

Another discovery they made is that even in a marriage that is not particularly happy both the husband and wife have a greater feeling of well being, greater life satisfaction, and less stress when compared to those in cohabitating and other relationship situations. The study hypothesis is this may because of marriage's stability, commitment and social status. Hypothetically those emotional improvements would lead to a lower level of crime which certainly seems to be the case.

A Question Of Constitutionality And The NSA

President George W. Bush is under attack and he came out fighting. He insisted he had the right as President to authorize the National Security Agency(NSA) to eavesdrop on international calls and emails. According to the 4th Amendment and the division of powers he does not have that right if the tab is on a naturalized or native citizen of the United States and in the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Constitution states why it was put into effect and starts off with the words “We the people” and then goes on to give several reason, one of which is to protect the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It obviously only is extending the blessing of liberty to the people of the United States and not Aliens.

The Fourteenth Amendment when describing citizens states “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” where thereof is the United States. So at least according to the Fourteenth Amendment a person outside the jurisdiction of the United States is not a citizen of the United States. This clause is there out of respect for the jurisdiction of other countries.

The Fourteenth Amendment also states “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” which shows that Aliens can have their privileges or immunities abridges as they do not have any. The limit here is a security issue as another clause in the preamble is to provide for the common defense.

Two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment do apply to Aliens and they are due process of law and equal protection under the law. In the first case there is no indication that they are extended any rights normally given to a citizen of the United States. The later is also stripped of the privileges or immunities given to citizens. The reason Aliens are treated like this is that Foreign policy dictates how they are treated, and that is dictated by Congress and the President.

Now if he is authorizing the monitoring of American citizens in American jurisdiction he is in violation of the Fourth Amendment but the Constitution gives him that authority to act for the general good because he is the executive officer of the United States. The Senate then has the option to impeach him or if they feel his action is not justified. The citizens can use their rights to protest, speech, protest, petition, vote, and the press to object. The Supreme Court can also weigh in. Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon acted defiantly with vastly different results. Each officer of the public whether elected or appointed takes an oath to defend the Constitution but ultimately it is the voters that hold them to that oath.