|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
asterix
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 1654
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I believe Under God was only inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance at the insistance of Eisenhower, around 1954. Presumably it was done with the approval of Congress, and in a democracy that's all it needs.
If you choose to flaunt the fact that you are omitting certain parts of the pledge, you take the risk that some moron might take exception to it.
You must have been in the wrong part of town!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
beancurdturtle
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asterix wrote: |
| I believe Under God was only inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance at the insistance of Eisenhower, around 1954. |
Good history student.
| asterix wrote: |
| Presumably it was done with the approval of Congress, and in a democracy that's all it needs. |
Actually, according to the Constitution of the U.S., Congress is not the final arbiter. They can pass all the laws they want. But if the courts find the law to be unconstitutional, it is overturned. The act to add under God to the pledge is clearly unconstitutional - though it wasn't overturned at the time.
Simply put:
1. The Congress is responsible for expressing the will of the people in making the laws;
2. The Judicial branch is responsible for ensuring the laws meet the promise inherent in the Constitution;
3. The Administrative branch (the President's team) is responsible to enforce the laws and protect the Constitution.
At the current time (though not in 1954), the Judicial branch seems to be the only branch that still has some grasp of it's responsibility.
_________________
Daniel
�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asterix
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 1654
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beancurdturtle.
Have you read "Ominous Parallels", by Leonard Pleikoff?
If not, you may find it interesting given your signature line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beancurdturtle
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asterix wrote: |
Beancurdturtle.
Have you read "Ominous Parallels", by Leonard Pleikoff?
If not, you may find it interesting given your signature line. |
I have not read it. I do understand some of the parallels - and I do see some of the same propaganda tactics the Nazi's used to gain their power used to great advantage by the neo-cons in power in America. The use of fear as a motivator. The elevation of largely unfounded threats against the homeland as a political lever. Branding anyone with a dissenting voice as unpatriotic.
However, I don't buy into the theory that the Bush Administration studied Nazi propaganda to learn their propaganda tactics. All these tactics are part of the toolkit of any really savvy marketing person nowadays. I am well trained in advertising copy writing and sales techniques. Maybe that's one reason I can see though the smokescreen of fear and bandwagon (you're with us, or you're an unpatriotic heretic) tactics the Bush Administration employs. It's very cunning marketing.
_________________
Daniel
�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
