FIVE WORDS AND TEN COMMANDMENTS TO VICTORY:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/thelaw.htm
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary
"God"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/god-.shtml
DEFINITION
GOD. From the Saxon god, good. The source of all good; the supreme being. 1. Every man is presumed to believe in God, and he who opposes a witness on the ground of his unbelief is bound to prove it. 3 Bouv. Inst. u. 3180.
2. Blasphemy against the Almighty, by denying his being or providence, was an offence punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment. 4 Bl. Corn. 60; 1 East, P. C. 3; 1 Russ. on Crimes, 217. This offence his been enlarged in Pennsylvania, and perhaps most of the states, by statutory provision. Vide Christianity; Blasphemy; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394.
3. By article 1, of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the United States, therefore, every one is allowed to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
MAXIMS
Accusare nemo debet se, nisi coram Deo. No one ought to accuse himself, unless before God. Hard. 139.
Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam. The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents. 2 Blacks. Com. 122. See Act of God.
Haeredem Deus facit, non homo. God and not man, make the heir.
Judici satis paena est quod Deum habet ultorem. It is punishment enough for a judge that he is responsible to God. 1 Leon. 295.
Jurare est Deum in testum vocare, et est actus divini cultus. To swear is to call God to witness, and is an act of religion. 3 Co. Inst. 165. Vide 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3180, note; 1 Benth. Rat. of Jud. Ev. 376, 371, note.
Solus Deus haeredem facit. God alone makes the heir.
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/god-.shtml
==============
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK7FLO8.html
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
SAN FRANCISCO - (Where Else?)
A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.
____________________________________________________________
"Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area.
And bureaucracy needs to stand trial before Congress today. So I'm
asking Congress, please investigate this now. Take whatever idiot
they have at the top of whatever agency and give me a better idiot.
Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot.
Just don't give me the same idiot."
...Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, New Orleans
on CBS' "The Early Show."
IDIOT AT THE TOP? Hmmmm
MOLON LABE!
================
News results for Michael Newdow "Under God" - View today's top stories
Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional 'Under God' ... - San Francisco Chronicle - 44 minutes ago
MORE:>>
==================
Posted on Wed, Sep. 14, 2005
R E L A T E D L I N K S
• Poll and discussion: Ban the pledge?
Judge: Pledge unconstitutional
By DAVID KRAVETS
AP LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER
SAN FRANCISCO - Setting up another likely Supreme Court showdown over the Pledge of Allegiance, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that reciting the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional.
The judge granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous pledge case before the Supreme Court, and ruled that the reference to one nation "under God" violates their children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento wrote that he was bound by the precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.
The decision sets up another church-state showdown at a time when the Supreme Court has two vacancies. John Roberts, who would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, is undergoing confirmation hearings, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring.
In the Supreme Court's 5-3 ruling dismissing Newdow's previous case, justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Clarence Thomas accused the majority of using Newdow's legal standing as a fig leaf to avoid the harder constitutional issue. In their dissent, they said they would have upheld "under God" as constitutional. With the court's membership in flux, the case's outcome is even less clear.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Newdow, reached by phone, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.
The case is Newdow v. Congress, 05-17.
------
Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for more than a decade.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12644692.htm
(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.
GOD: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/god-.shtml
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
