Why does Nancy Policy think that the phrase "One nation under God" is an attack on the constitution?

Question

I should have paid more attention to the spell checker I of course meant to say Nancy Pelosi so Liberals please don't give me answers that say "You can't even spell her name right" I just didn't pay close enough attention to my spell checker.

Answer 1

Your question does not properly establish the context in which Rep. Pelosi was speaking. But you'd never take anything out of context for shock value, would you? Never, I'm sure. If you are--well, you're well on your way to becoming a future right-wing pundit, congrats.

Rep Pelosi was actually saying that a bill for protecting the phrase "under God" in the pledge is just another rabble-rousing, power-grabbing end run around the constitutionally defined and protected role of our independent judiciary by the current crop of Republicans. She is arguing that it's the courts' role to interpret laws, and that that role is enshrined in the Constitution. The bill is an attack on the ability of some non-existent liberal court to rule the "under God" phrase unconstitutional. This has never happened in any court and most likely never would, but it isn't Congress' business anyway. Like she says, such a bill would never pass Constitutional muster.

Granted, an idiotic law to "protect" the pledge--which originally didn't include "under God"--from those conservative boogeymen, the "activist judges", was never actually intended to pass. It was just another cynical attempt to placate a conservative base who always seem to put more importance on symbols than substance--ie the flag over the constitution. Since so many of them are so keen on Christianity they should really go over that 2nd commandment bit about idols and graven images. The flag, the "under God" pledge, apple pie--these things are idols. The constitution--the ideas behind America that protect freedom--that's the real thing that needs to be honored and protected. Unfortunately that just seems too abstract for them. It's always "Four legs good, two legs bad" for these folks.

Here are her own words if you don't believe me.

"Mr. Speaker, with our troops in harm’s way in in Iraq, and with our country facing the clear and present danger of terrorism, there are great and grave issues that Congress must address. But what are we doing here today? Are we debating the 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our nation? Are we providing health insurance to the millions of Americans who have lost their insurance under this President, providing jobs to the millions of unemployed Americans, and fully funding our schools?

"No, Mr. Speaker, instead we are gathering here once again to debate undermining the Constitution of the United States and dishonoring the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution.

"The bill before us claims to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. But protect the Pledge from what? Our Supreme Court has not undermined the constitutionality of the pledge. With the reversal of the Newdow case, there is only one major appeals court decision that has addressed the constitutionality of the pledge, and that court – in the Seventh Circuit -- has upheld the Pledge.

"This is a piece of legislation in search of a solution for a problem that does not exist.

"Millions of Americans daily and proudly pledge 'one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Let me be clear: I defer to no one in my defense of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge. I strongly believe the phrase 'under God' and the Pledge itself is an uplifting expression of support of the United States.

"This bill not only does not protect the pledge, it violates the spirit of the Pledge by professing a lack of faith in our Constitutional framework. It has been a settled principle since Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, that 'it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' The Federalist papers, subsequent decisions of the Court, and the judicial branch’s role as a co-equal branch all strongly suggest that Congress cannot prohibit courts from determining Constitutional questions.

"There is no question that this bill does not pass Constitutional muster.

"But that does not deter the bill’s proponents. The author of the last court stripping bill, and a key advocate for this bill, the Gentleman from Indiana has even outdone his statement two months ago that 200 years of precedent in Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review was 'wrongly decided.'

"The Gentleman from Indiana amazingly asserted in the markup of this bill last week that, 'the notion of an independent judiciary is a flawed notion….the notion of an independent judiciary just does not bear out actually in the Constitution.' Is this what the leadership of this House and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee really believe? I suggest that they read James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers. This radical concept is completely counter to our history and our values.

"Two months ago, some assured us that court stripping efforts would stop once they got what they wanted on the Defense of Marriage Act. But as the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Dean of the House, so eloquently warned us in July, 'We should expect to see this dangerous approach repeated on a wide range of other legislation.' Today, his prediction has come true, and there is no pretense that this will end. What is next? Voting rights? Laws that prohibit racial discrimination? Civil liberties? Our rights to privacy?

"As we consider this bill, we must remember our history and protect our Constitution to ensure our liberty. We must protect the ability of the federal judiciary to safeguard our freedoms and to ensure access to our courts by all.

"This bill is an assault on our cherished Constitution and the independent judiciary for partisan purposes, and it is an attempt to distract the American people from the Republicans’ record of failure.

"Mr. Speaker, let us truly honor the Pledge by keeping faith with its spirit. Let us pledge to be 'one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Answer 2

The constitution stands for (among other things) the Freedom of Religion and the separation of Church and State. To allow the phrase "One nation under God" to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance negates the very things the Constitution stands for. Did you know that the original Pledge of Allegiance did not have the phrase "under God?" It was put there in 1954, YEARS after the original was written in 1892.

Personally, it's not that there is something wrong with the phrase "under God," but the fact that it does not hold true for a nation of so many diverse cultures and religious (& non-religious) beliefs.

Answer 3

Because NOT EVERYONE believes in god!
Separation of church and state simply means that the gov't is not supposed to endorse any specific religion. When they added "under god" to the POA and "in god we trust" to money, the US gov't was basically endorsing a belief in god and that offends MANY atheists. But, oh well who cares about them, they're not really Americans anyway, right?
The 10 commandments are allowed on certain gov't institutions ONLY when they are used as EXAMPLES OF LAW in history. When they are in a RELIGIOUS context, it is forbidden. Maybe it's time to reexamine the "under god" stuff too.
PS I am not an athiest, I just don't see the point of alienationg a LARGE part of the citizens just for god. I'm sure it (god) would rather I be compassionate to them rather than be an asshole.

Answer 4

Probably because the Constitution gives religious freedom and supports a seperation between church and state. In calling to God in this way, it seems to be spitting on the ideals set up by the Constitution.

Answer 5

Because, like most people on the left, she lives in some fantasy world where the constitution actually says "separation of church and state".

Answer 6

Pelosi may be one of those who believe that religion has no place in government structure.

Answer 7

because she is trying to push her religion which is "liberalism" and or "secularism" on me....

she is denying me my 1st amendment right to say this is "One Nation Under God"

Answer 8

probably because she doesnt want to acknowledge that God is the supreme ruler.

Answer 9

Can you please name your source for this? Please don't tell me the Sean Hannity show. Show me the link with the text where this statement is made. I am willing to bet that you can't.