Listen to the Founding Fathers

There are many individuals that feel our freedoms, those granted by the US Constitution, are under attack. Among those freedoms includes the freedom of religion. Our constitution prevents the government from establishing a national religion. Yet, we have managed to have religious symbolism everywhere we turn in our government. Ten Commandments displayed in various courthouses (recently ruled unconstitutional), “In God We Trust” on our currency, and lastly… even “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words “under god” in its original form. In fact, in the early 1950’s, President Eisenhower signed legislation adopting the addition.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.

This move was clearly unconstitutional. This is exactly what our founding fathers, the author of the Constitution, and other Presidents following wanted and warned to prevent to prevent such legislation. One such founder, Thomas Jefferson, addressed this very matter directly with a religious organization.

"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts. In most of the Govts. of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt." James Madison - Letter to Jasper Adams, 1832-1833 (date uncertain)

Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate. Ulysses S. Grant, 1875

The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Newdow vs U.S. Congress that California Public Schools may not require its students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This case has been before the Supreme Court once before where the original ruling was that “under god” was unconstitutional, and (due to political, and to some extent social, pressure) the same judge that made the original ruling overturned and changed his own ruling.

Now, the Alberto Gonzalez, United States Attorney General, has vowed to overturn the latest courts ruling. (Chicago Tribune | Gonzales Says Justice to Fight for Pledge) Ironically, the oath of the Attorney General itself is un-constitutional as it states:

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

How can he “support and defend the Constitution” if he is vowing to overturn a fundamental law of the very same document? It is a severe contradiction to swear by oath of office to uphold the Constitution and all that it represents while working to overturn a ruling a court decision on an issue that was obviously unconstitutional. Is he putting his faith and personal beliefs above the law? The ruling was correct. These were government funded/sponsored schools, therefore they are bound by the no establishment of a religion clause of the US Constitution. The ruling should stand.

So who exactly is doing the most damage to the freedoms provided to us by the US Constitution?

The John Roberts Saga: The Questioning Begins, Part 2`

John Roberts has been thrown a multitude of questions on a variety of issues his way already today. They range from Abortion, voting rights, to the Separation of Church and State. Thus far, and my liberal friends will not like this, but Im actually impressed with Mr. Roberts. Based on his comments thus far he seems to want to know the facts before he makes a decision, he's adamant about looking at the big picture and base his decisions by keeping an open mind. As many predicted, abortion was a subject he avoided giving no clear yay or nay to the Roe v Wade decision regardless of how much Arlen Specter drilled him. Its a topic I have an certain spin on, and said opinion is not very popular. Senators Feingold and Graham dont seem to have grasped the concept that he cant comment or give his opinion on cases that either are or could face his current court or the Supreme Court. They are really grasping at straws bringing up issues when he first began his law career, specifically working with the Reagan Administration where he was specifically responsible for projecting the administrations policies assuming they were his opine. They are also bringing up some cases, where by the way he was paid to assist his clients interests, also as opines of his personal views. All the while, Roberts has maintained that he wouldnt be a very successful judge if he used his personal views in consideration of his decision. So far.. I have to grade the Senators questions a C-. I understand that they have to give some background on some of the issues.. so do it. Then get to your question. Dont beat around the bush.. Just ask the question you really want the answer to. Quit asking questions that he has repeatedly stated that ethics will not allow him to answer. Dont ask leading questions... such as "I dont believe that the burning of the flag is a freedom of speech.. how do you feel about that?" Dont tell him how you believe..... just ask the question.

Does this really have to be that difficult?

The John Roberts Saga: The Question Begins,...

but will they let him answer. Within a 5 minute period... Senator Arlen Spector has asked Senator Ed Kennedy no less than 5 times within a 5 minute period to let Roberts answer. If he would shut up long enough and quit interrupting Roberts.. he may get an actual answer to his question.

The John Roberts Saga: Day 1 His Words, Some Notable Quotes

"Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy and members of the committee.

Let me begin by thank Senators Lugar and Warner and Bayh for their warm and generous introductions. And let me reiterate my thanks to the president for nominating me.

I'm humbled by his confidence and, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to be worthy of the high trust he has placed in me.

Let me also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for ther today, friends, mentors, teachers and colleagues — many of whom are here today.

Last week one of those mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year, and I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient. He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose.

His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and, I know, to many others.

I will miss him.

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.

Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court.

I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, "I speak for my country."

But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.

Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And yet, all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.

That is a remarkable thing.

It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.

President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights. We do, because of the wisdom of our founders and the sacrifices of our heroes over the generations to make their vision a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.

I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.

Senators Lugar and Bayh talked of my boyhood back home in Indiana. I think all of us retain, from the days of our youth, certain enduring images. For me those images are of the endless fields of Indiana, stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or a barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land.

Growing up, I never imagined that I would be here, in this historic room, nominated to be the chief justice. But now that I am here, I recall those endless fields with their promise of infinite possibilities, and that memory inspires in me a very profound commitment.

If I am confirmed, I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members of the committee.

I look forward to your questions."


---------------------------------

Tomorrow.. the interrogation begins.

Facing the Future: John Roberts

Well the time has come, and we are before an ever changing Supreme Court as John Roberts faces the Judiciary Committee today.

Resume for John Roberts

Born:
1955 in Buffalo

Education:
BA, Harvard 1976
JD, Harvard Law School 1979

Work History:
US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit 2003
Attorney - Hogan & Hartson 1989-1993
Principal Deputy Solicitor General - President George H.W. Bush
Aide to Attorney General William French Smith (Under Ronald Reagan) 1981-1982
Aide to Fred Fielding White House Council 1982-1986
Law Clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, New York
Law Clerk for Associate Justice (at the time) William H. Rehnquist


Key Issues for Tomorrow's Hearing:

Separation of Church and State - In 1985 the Kentucy School Board sent a memo to then President Ronald Reagan requesting a statement of support for the requirement of the Kentucky Public Schools to post the National Motto "In God We Trust" and the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, are grateful to the Almighty God for the civil, religious, and political liberties we enjoy". John Roberts reply.

Abortion - Roberts is on record for stating ""we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" in a brief in Rust v. Sullivan.

Some other issues to be brought up are: Torture of Prisoners of War, Civil Rights

Let the games begin.

Introducing.. me

Who is Gatorrrrrr?

I dont really fit into any particular "stereotype". Im not fully college educated, nor am I some ultra successful business man. Im not a family man, but I believe in family. Im not a conservative nor a liberal, but a little of both. I am not wealthy, nor am I poor. I am a gay man, but that is not what defines me. There is, in fact, much more to me. I am an ordinary man, yet I am unique. I am very observant, yet at times I tend to read too far into things. I have friends and acquaintances from vast walks of life. I dont belong to any one clique. I love politics. I love college football, cooking, and poker. I am a home owner. I aspire to be more than what is expected of me. I want to be that 1% that broke all the rules to what makes one successful. I am very opinionated.. and very outspoken. But I am also passionate, ambitious.. and sensitive. I like to look at the big picture. But I am also very stubborn. Im very impatient.

I have a journal already where I talk about personal matters, this blog's utilization will be much more of a political nature, covering local and national politics, business and other civic matters. I will give my opinion/input on popular news events. I plan on getting involved in a political campaign, and other related and semi-related activities. I want to learn. I want to grow. I want to understand. I want to experience the things that effect us all. That is what this blog will represent. That side of me. No subject is off limits, all punches will be pulled.

What is this 'Jeckyl and Hyde' thing about?

I have a bit of.. well lets just say a temper, and it doesnt take much to alter my mood. Usually.. stupidity gets to me. Why I let things like this get to me.. Ill never know. There will be plenty of stupidity mentioned herein. In typical fashion.. Ill detail the stupidity (arguement).. throw in some facts... and end with my opinion. The more upset I get.. the.. more entertaining the read I am sure.

You must be this tall to ride this ride.