Yesterday in my post, I mentioned that another arrogant, power driven federal judge had ruled the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Here is a quote from the article written today in the Peoria Journal Star. "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." (Peoria Journal Star, September 15, 2005, page A3, below the fold)

An explanation of the term "lacked standing." It basically means that the individual who brought the case to court does not have any legal justification to be involved in the case. In the original case mentioned, since the father did not have custody of the daughter, he had no basis for filing a law suit. The mother could have, he could not.

Now, if he did not have standing as the Supreme Court said he did not, then he did not have standing at the Appellate court level and he did not have standing at the District court level. If he did not have standing, he did not legally have any case before those two lower courts--it is as if the case never happened. Yet, the District court judge is now trying to use the decision of the Appellate court that legally never existed as his justification for ruling the phrase "under God" unconstitutional. He is trying to claim a nonexistent decision, legally speaking, is now a precedent that he as a lower court judge must obey. That is an absolute misuse of precedent. There is no precedent because legally there was no case. Now, if I know that, why doesn't this judge?

Congress placed the phrase "under God" by law into the Pledge of Allegiance approximately fifty years ago. After fifty years it is all of a sudden a coercive requirement that is not allowed by the Constitution. For fifty years that was not true! The Declaration of Independence has at least three references to a Higher Being (God). Is learning and reading about the Declaration of Independence now a coercive requirement that is unconstitutional under this judge's definition of what is Constitutional and what is not?

We now have a situation where according to Court rulings eleven year old girls can murder their unborn baby without the approval of a parent. Any filthy language is acceptable as free speech and has no coercive influence on children. Congress can not regulate the internet to try to limit children's access because it would possibly limit the free speech of adults. Yet, the phrase "under God" is coercive and harmful to children. What illogical, absurdly ridiculous, libertine trash!!!

This is yet another situation where a small handful of people can control what occurs legally in the United State because of the misuse and abuse of the Constitution by uncontrolled judges. (The greatest abuser of children in this country are the federal courts!) It does not matter if the majority of people support the position of a Congress who was elected by the people. A small group of unelected judges and Justices have total control over the final conclusion of the will of the people. This is Courtocracy in the fullest. It is also a violation of the very Constitution they took an oath to obey and protect. I believe it is time to impeach and convict judge Lawrence Karlton for violating his oath of office!