Posted 20:17 by Grote 0 comments

Dr. Ludd would be proud (or at least I hope he would)

On monday, the court threw out the Pledge of Allegiance case, due to the fact that the "father" (my quotes) in question had no legal custody of his daughter and therefore had no right to challenge the law. For now it's a dead issue. However it will, no doubt, be challeneged again and I personally would like to share my opinions on it. That, and I've been meaning to do it. Armed with a google search and my trusty Constitutional Law book (mine is the eighth edition) from my Senior year, I'll provide reasons/case law for "under God" to be upheld and struck down. Warning: I can get wordy, but I guess you'll have to cope or just skip the entire article. Also I'm not passing judgement only presenting the facts for my readers to debate and decide for themselves.

Argument for striking it down:
The most obvious reason to strike down "under God" is contained in the first amendment, applied to the States by the fourteenth amendment, where "Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The phrase "under God" establishes at least mono-deistic religion, that some agnostics or athestists might not have. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) the (Supreme) Court established the "Lemon" tests. These three tests have been used to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not foster an entanglement with religion. As the Court ruled in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), "For even though a statute that is motivated, in part by a religious purpose, may satisfy the first criterion." The fact that the pledge was written without "under God" and then an act of Congress added those words in 1954, because of the fear of "godless communists" upon the urging of religious leaders. It should be noted, that the pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist, but I digress. Finally, in Engel v. Vitale (1962), Justice Black wrote "The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not." So, despite the best intentions of the government in 1954, the adding of the words "under God" should be struck out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Argument for upholding the pledge:
While the First Amendment, does prohibit the establishment of religion, it also says that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free excercise thereof." Which means, if students, et al, were not required to say the pledge each day, and/or the phrase in question was optional, then it would be constitutional. In California, the state in which the complaintent resides, the law states that students may opt not to say the pledge. Secondly, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court ruled that "The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means that neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church." Also, regarding Wallace in an concurring opinion O'Connor wrote that the standards set in Lemon need to be reexamined and refined in order to make them more useful in achieving the underlying purpose of the First Amendment. The standards set there are extremely subjective. She also wrote that "the Court is reluctant to attribute Constitutional motives to public entities when a plausable secular purpose may be discerned from the enactment." In fact, the Court stated in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) that "some relationship between government and religious organizations are inevitable." For example, the Supreme Court, opens each session with "God save this honorable court". Not to mention Congress opens with a daily prayer, and every single presdient as willingly added "so help me God" to the end of the oath of office. The Court ruled on it in 1983, with Marsh v. Chambers, saying that "It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable." Also, in American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio v. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board (2002) the court of appeals ruled that as long as there was no direct reference to a scripture or specific religion, that the motto "With God, all things are possible" was constitutional. Since the Lemon test is at the very least ambigous in this situation and the pledge does not cite a specific religion or scripture, and the pledge does not establish a specific religion as it is being recited. The court must affirm the current law.


I've worked on this for the better part of three days. I hope, in the end that this makes sense and you've formed an opinion on it. Although, it's not surprising that the Court jumped at the chance not to rule on the issue. The Supreme Court, as a rule, does not like to make laws. Which is what it would do in this case. Overturning a SCOTUS decision, is nigh impossible but it has been done. To rule two words in the pledge of allegiance were unconstitutional would only serve to open a new can of worms about our money, a good number of state Mottos, and the way Congress opens each session; and that's just to name three.
For those who don't know, Dr. Ludd was my Constitutional Law teacher in college. All four exams I took in his classes were just as controversial as this issue.

Posted 21:40 by Grote 0 comments

Take me out to the ball game...

A couple weeks ago, on my vacation, I decided to see the ol' Cincinnati RedLegs play a baseball game, against the World Champion Florida Marlins. I decided to take a photolog of the things to see and do at the new Great American Ballpark. Actually before I begin, can I say how much I love that name? It's corporate naming rights, but not overtly. Anyway, from Sycamore St. you can see soon-to-be-retired Reds' announcer Joe Nuxhall's catchphrase as he signs off each broadcast.


After that you cross the bridge and walk past a very nice bas relief of players past, present and future (which until this second I didn't think to get a picture of. Drat). Anyway you're now on the concourse and there are three, soon to be four statues of Reds Greats. All are life size and accuratly represented. You have:

Ted Klusuzki (and this is before steroids folks) waiting on deck.


Frank Robinson batting

and the aforementioned Joe Nuxhall pitching

Now as family legend says if we tap my grandmother's memorial brick


The Reds will win. (I must have tapped it too many times or I missed. Oops). So now we are ready to enter


One of the first things you notice as you walk in, are two large tile mosaics of (arguably) the two most famous teams to come out of the Reds' Organization. First is the very first professional baseball team from 1869.


Second is the Big Red Machine

This team includes Ken Griffey Sr.(30), Tony Perez(24), Johnny Bench (in Catcher's Garb), Joe Morgan(8), Davy Concepcion(13), Caesar Geronimo(20) (no I did not make that up), George Foster (15), and not identified, Pete Rose (heh).

There are also four giant replica newspapers hanging from the rafters. Each proclaiming victory after four of the five Reds World Championships



If you have time, check out the FanZone, over on the southwest side of the stadum, there are pitching and hitting games. A "Run-it-out" game, where you have to run to first base (I'm a slow 4.6 seconds). There is also many photo opportunities, for example after taking off my Reds cap and not straightening my hair, (:p)


I am now apart of the 1990 World Champions of the World (Thank you Rob Dibble), with Paul O'Neil, Barry Larkin, Chris Sabo, and Eric Davis. I think it got taken midblink too. Ah, well. Inside the stadium, you've got the giant scoreboard, with the lineups:
and two giant smokestacks symbolizing Cincinnati's Riverboat Heritage.


At the time, Ken Griffey Jr. was at 492 career homeruns and at this writing he stands at 498.

The game finally got underway, and the Reds, lost 3-0. However, we had *great* seats,

,

and it was, for most of the game a titanic struggle. I'm going at least 2, probably 3 more times this year. Join me won't you?

Posted 21:48 by Grote 0 comments

More World Tour

Jason and I are offical finished with the preliminaries. We've played the last of the Greater Dayton mini-golf courses on Saturday. Ironically, it is the closest one to me, being the South Adventure Golf courses. Jason, didn't do as well as he would have liked but still ended up increasing his lead by one stroke. Well, now the real fun begins as we plan trips to Columbus and Cincinnati and few places in between.

Posted 13:46 by Grote 0 comments

Interesting Quiz

Sure you may say you're left (or right), but can you back it up? Take this quiz and find out. I'll wait, now after you've taken it, and before you complain to me how confusing some of the questions were, consider this: With the exception of the Rev. Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, all candidates for the 2004 White House, are right of center. That leaves us two options 1) Complaining about how Kerry and Bush are really the same or 2) Voting for the greater evil ;)

Posted 17:00 by Grote 0 comments

How 'bout a nice cup of STFU?

That's right, I'm talkin to you Chad Kroeger. At a press conference to announce his spokesmanship deal with the Candian arm of McDonalds for their McTracks, he blasts illegal downloading. He states, "Young people don't think, I'd be surprised if young people knew what the hell Sam The Record Man or HMV was." Sir, I don't consider myself young and I don't know what the hell those are. That and if you and your ilk put out albums that weren't 90% crap, I'd buy them. I'll make you a deal: you stop putting out crap and I'll start buying again. However, since I doubt you'll hold up your end of the bargin, I say:

Posted 20:52 by Grote 0 comments

Now with Commenty Goodness!

Have you ever read something, that I wrote, you just wanted to share with the world, on how wrong you thought I was? Now's your chance! Introducing comments, just click on the link and type in your comments!
Update (6/4/4): Can't figure out what I'm doing wrong to get the comments to come up. I hope to have them up ASAP
Update to the Update (6/7/4): Thanks to the nice guys at blogger, they fixed my template and now I have comments! :)

Posted 17:23 by Grote 0 comments

From the 'That's So Crazy It Might Actually Work' Dept.

There's a Pauly Shore movie I might actually want to see. (Don't call the insane asylum people yet) It's called Pauly Shore is Dead. Basically, Pauly Shore has lost everything, his house, his car, his agent. So, he moves back in with his mom where the ghost of a comedian tells him that to become really famous he needs to kill himself so he'll be 'dead before his time' (that's debatable). Hillarity thus ensues.

I'm not totally passing judgement on it until I at least see a trailer. You can call the men in the white jackets now.
Thanks to Mike Addison for the site