JCASHFAN
All American
13916 Posts
user info
edit post |
In fairness, this argument has centered on the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps Lumex could explain what he feels his pledge would look like. Otherwise we're a bunch of blind men arguing what the color red looks like.
That being said . . .
| Quote : | | "such a pledge can have a purpose in reducing moral ambiguity," |
You still haven't explained how. The court derives it's authority from the consent of the collective body of the people who have agreed to be governed by the rules their elected legislatures have enacted. Refusal to recite a pledge would not absolve you of any crimes you've committed simply because you opted out on the day of your trial. The court's authority is established LONG before you step into the courtroom.
| Quote : | | "just like swearing to tell the truth or reading the Miranda Warning." |
No. Swearing to tell the truth is a procedural process which codifies testimony as a special kind of speech. You still have the option of exercising your 5th amendment rights. The Miranda warning is the same. Nobody compels you to exercise your Miranda rights, it is just informing you that your status as a citizen has changed and reminding you that you still possess rights.
| Quote : | | "It also serves a ceremonial and philosphical purpose: to reaffirm the authority of government and law." |
see my first point.
| Quote : | | "However, you of all people should be able to appreciate a justice system that doesn't have 100% presumed authority over people; without their explicit consent. This is libertarianism." |
Compelling them to say the pledge is not libertarianism. If anything it is the fact that the court has the power to compel the pledge that affirms the authority (moral or not). Duly passed and constitutional laws hold sway by virtue of being duly passed and constitutional, not because you pledge allegiance to them. 10/12/2010 3:15:53 PM
|
