will get you thrown in jail in Mississippi:

Quote :

"OCTOBER 7--A Mississippi judge yesterday jailed a lawyer who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in his courtroom. Attorney Danny Lampley, 49, was taken into custody Wednesday morning after Chancellor Talmadge Littlejohn cited him for criminal contempt of court for failing to recite the 31-word pledge at the outset of the morning’s proceedings at the Lee County courthouse. An October 6 order signed by Talmadge notes that Lampley was being charged for his “failure to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as ordered.” Lampley, the judge added, “shall purge himself of said criminal contempt…by standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in open court.”"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/lawyer-jailed-over-pledge-refusal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIFQkbhTIGk

10/8/2010 2:02:47 PM

Quote :

"failing to recite the 31-word pledge"

Why mention this... unless the whole thing is one big troll bait for the "under God" non issue.

[Edited on October 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM. Reason : -]

10/8/2010 2:29:57 PM

Interesting point. Could just be lazy writing.

10/8/2010 2:31:25 PM

I think it is more to the point that he wasn't asking the guy to ford the Mississippi river. Its a short recital of a mere 31 words.

10/8/2010 2:39:39 PM

A recitation of a "pledge" sounds pretty socialist to me.

10/8/2010 2:43:47 PM

Pretty sure this will get thrown out. Judges have a lot of control within a courtroom but not the authority to have someone jailed for not reciting the pledge. It's unlikely, but hopefully this judge faces some kind of censure.

10/8/2010 2:58:34 PM

Why pledge to the flag anyways? Why not the Constitution instead?

10/8/2010 3:01:14 PM

That is my take and one of the reasons I personally refuse to say the PoA.

10/8/2010 3:10:09 PM

[Edited on October 8, 2010 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2010 4:09:45 PM

No free country should ever have a pledge of allegiance.

10/8/2010 4:44:08 PM

^^ Nice, I just got it.

10/8/2010 7:39:31 PM

10/8/2010 7:47:35 PM

Quote :

"hopefully this judge faces some kind of censure."

For real.


I can't believe, in our system of [supposed] justice and fairness, that more people aren't outraged over this "elephant in the room".


For instance, having to tuck your shirt in:
How the goddamn fuck can a judge legally demand that people tuck their shirts in?
ACLU? hello?
There is nothing illegal, harmful, or dangerous about an untucked shirt.
How the goddamn fuck can a judge legally compel people to do this?
How the goddamn fuck?

How the goddamn fuck?

Quote :

"No free country should ever have a pledge of allegiance."

Exactly. Agree 100%.

10/8/2010 8:31:47 PM

hey any of yall seen i,robot?

10/8/2010 8:42:53 PM

^^I do not agree.


The pledge of allegiance is a pledge of allegiance to the country that enforces justice for all. Why not say the pledge of allegiance? what does it symbolize if you don't?!

If you're "free" to be silent and not say the pledge in the courtroom, then you do not agree that you are unified in one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. That means you don't believe in the system you are working in.

[Edited on October 8, 2010 at 9:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2010 9:41:29 PM

^
Wow.
I really hope that's just trolling.

10/8/2010 10:03:36 PM

Normally I have little problem with judges jailing people in contempt for showing actual disrespect to the court and to the judge, but this time I think it went to far. I would say that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a judge having the legal authority to compel you to say anything, but on the other hand, that's sort of how subpoenaed testimony and the like work. Nor does saying "I'm uncomfortable with the judge compelling someone to say anything not relevant to the case" as that ignores the right to not incriminate yourself. So while I can't quite articulate the boundries I have, I can say this crosses them.

It is my understanding that he stood, and remained in respectful silence for the others, and that's really all I think the judge can or should ask of him.

10/8/2010 10:38:49 PM

Because in a courtroom the judge makes the rules.

Things that are OK on the bus, in a restaurant, or at grandma's house might not be OK in a courtroom. I personally think that having to tuck your shirt in is stupid, but is it really unreasonable? Not at all. If I went into a courtroom and flipped the bird at the judge for the entirety of the proceedings, I wouldn't be hurting anyone, but it is well within the judges right to kick me out.

On the other hand, if the judge told someone that he had to stand on one leg for an hour, or make his opening argument in Spanish, that would be unreasonable. But requiring someone to say the pledge is far from unreasonable. More than anything, it's a cocky lawyer trying to prove a point, and the judge not backing down.

10/8/2010 10:42:47 PM

See I just think it crosses the line. Things like tucking your shirt are a matter of respect. Likewise, if this guy was being disruptive or disrespectful during this time, that would also be a matter of respect. But actually reciting the pledge is to me as much of a personal matter as the decision to swear upon a holy book, or simply affirm that you will tell the truth.

10/8/2010 11:21:32 PM

Damn, I didn't know the judges were demanding the tucked-in shirts.

I thought it was just bailiffs tryna help the kids out and make their own jobs easier in terms of weapons and whatnot.

10/8/2010 11:42:10 PM

Wow, some serious sheep in here.

Quote :

"Because in a courtroom the judge makes the rules."

NO.
A judge is not a legislator. They do not get to make rules. FUCK THAT.
There may be some practical rules of the courtroom, like not talking, but those kinds of rules are fine, because they directly affect how the cases are heard... but other discretionary rules made by judges (tuck in your shirt, wear formal clothes, recite the pledge, etc.) are complete bullshit, and I'd certainly expect to be unconstitutional. Complete bullshit.

Complete bullshit.


(Hello? ACLU? We need you!)

Quote :

"But requiring someone to say the pledge is far from unreasonable."

What the fuck are you smoking?
How the holy fuck is that anywhere close to reasonable? Reciting the pledge has absolutely no purpose germane to courtroom proceedings. It is far from reasonable to demand its recitation.

Quote :

"Things like tucking your shirt are a matter of respect."

Respect? WTF? You don't discretionarily demand respect. Unless you're Eric Cartman.
If someone chooses to have an untucked shirt, that in NO WAY harms or interferes with courtroom proceedings. What's next? Everybody has to comb their hair? No dreads? No sandals? What the goddamn fuck? Unless you were dressed in a way that everyone would generally agree amounts to a disruption (bear costume, nipple pasties, etc.,) what one wears is a civil liberty. A civil liberty.

If you can't understand that, you have no real sense of justice and fairness.

[Edited on October 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2010 8:45:31 AM

10/9/2010 9:52:33 AM

If the Jehovah's Witnesses managed to get a SCOTUS ruling saying they don't have to say the pledge in school, there's no way that this is going to hold water either. I'm all for use of the pledge and do it myself when situation calls for it, but I don't see any reason you should force someone to say it particularly if they have a conscientious objection to it.

10/11/2010 12:03:13 PM

Citizens of a country shoulnd't be required to "pledge allegiance" to their country of citizenship?

I don't have a problem with mandated courtroom decorum. I don't know if being put in jail was the proper consequence, but I understand that certain conditions are necessary for fast and fair judgement.

10/11/2010 12:53:47 PM

You're not pledging allegiance to the country, you're pledging allegiance to the flag. Besides, I don't even like the idea of pledging allegiance to the United States because, what is the United States? The Constitution? Yes. That is a document capturing a specific set of ideas. But a flag or something as nebulous as a "nation".

No.

10/11/2010 1:00:02 PM

I don't think a flag is any more nebulous than a document.

That being said, requiring anyone to recite a pledge to anything is fascist.

10/11/2010 1:05:11 PM

Whats the alternative? No allegiance to the nation? No recognition of government or laws? I like freedom, but I also like having laws.

10/11/2010 1:44:34 PM

^
Are you trolling?
Why do you think a pledge would accomplish anything?
If someone was a traitor, don't you think they'd say the pledge to blend in?

How does saying the pledge, or even more, forcing people to say it accomplish anything? What does it accomplish?

How does the lack of a forced pledge amount to a lack of allegiance to the nation, government or laws?

10/11/2010 1:48:39 PM

So allegiance should just be implied?

Perhaps its just a matter of legal procedure, but it's still necessary. Requiring people to re-affirm their (until now) implied agreement to abide by the laws of the country they live in helps to validate the judgements passed in court.

10/11/2010 1:59:49 PM

land of the free, and the home of the Wolfpack

10/11/2010 2:00:09 PM

Quote :

"That being said, requiring anyone to recite a pledge to anything is fascist. authoritarian"

Socialists, Communists, Theologists and autocrats of all other stripes have required pledges of allegiance.

10/11/2010 2:00:41 PM

Quote :

"Whats the alternative? No allegiance to the nation? No recognition of government or laws? I like freedom, but I also like having laws."

How the balls did you get from "No Allegiance to the nation" to "no recognition of government or laws?" Since when did legislation and enforcement of laws require the citizenry to pledge allegiance to something?

I am a citizen of the United States of America by virtue of my parents being citizens and being born within the boundaries of our country. I am subject to all of the laws of this nation, and am afforded the freedoms our Constitution provides. How does me or anyone else saying or not saying the Pledge of Allegiance change this?

Quote :

"So allegiance should just be implied? Perhaps its just a matter of legal procedure, but it's still necessary. Requiring people to re-affirm their (until now) implied agreement to abide by the laws of the country they live in helps to validate the judgements passed in court."

Implied? It should not even be required. I believe abiding by the laws of this nation are enough for a citizen to be acceptable.

Quote :

"Socialists, Communists, Theologists and autocrats of all other stripes have required pledges of allegiance."

I'll agree with your edit. Not a fan of authoritarianism of any stripe.

[Edited on October 11, 2010 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2010 2:03:48 PM

Quote :

"How the balls did you get from "No Allegiance to the nation" to "no recognition of government or laws?" Since when did legislation and enforcement of laws require the citizenry to pledge allegiance to something?"

The pledge of allegiance is essentially an affirmation of the authority of the government to pass and enforce laws. Do you think that authority should always be implied? Or do you suppose, as I do, that in at least one place (the courtroom) we need to remind ourselves that the authority of the government stems from our willingness to abide by it?

10/11/2010 2:15:57 PM

Nope, sorry don't agree with that. Piss poor reasoning on your part.

10/11/2010 2:22:00 PM

Quote :

"Piss poor reasoning on your part."

Agreed 100%.
Lumex, answer my questions about how a pledge accomplishes anything.

We understand the point about allegiance that you're making, but how does a pledge address that

10/11/2010 2:31:49 PM

It's just another way of saying "I agree to the authority of this court", and that solves the philosphical problem of "does the court have authority over the defendent?"

I don't know how to break it down further for you guys.

10/11/2010 2:49:40 PM

What if the lawyer wasn't even a US citizen? I'm sure this guy is, but what if he wasn't? Does he still have to pledge allegiance to the US flag?

10/11/2010 2:51:02 PM

^^i was unaware this was a federal court.

10/11/2010 3:04:37 PM

Quote :

"that solves the philosphical problem of "does the court have authority over the defendent?""

So, by compelling someone with threat of imprisonment to pledge allegiance to a flag, the court establishes a moral prescient for it's authority?


I think by incarcerating a lawyer (who by all accounts stood respectfully) for refusing to say the pledge, establishes pretty clearly from whence it draws it's power . . .

10/11/2010 3:11:53 PM

I am merely pointing out the fact that it is possible for a pledge to be necessary in a fair and free justice system, contrary to claims made earlier in this thread.

I didn't say I agreed with the judge's decision to jail the lawyer in this particular case. Nor am I saying I agree with the way courts use the United States' Pledge of Allegiance.

10/11/2010 3:22:09 PM

Is it "possible to be necessary" or is it actually necessary?

Sure, it's possible that it's necessary. But it actually is not necessary. By virtue of being a citizen of the United States, I am bound by the laws of this nation, regardless of whether I or anyone else recite some lousy oath.

10/11/2010 3:25:58 PM

I'll rephrase:

I was pointing out that reciting the national pledge has usefulness in a hypothetical free and fair courtroom. Thus, a pledge requirement is not always "fascist".

10/11/2010 3:37:16 PM

Hmm, sorry but no.

The pledge of allegiance is at it's very core contrary to the ideals of the United States as set forth by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Furthermore the pledge holds no legal weight, is not in any way legally binding, and its recitation is not required for anyone at anytime.

10/11/2010 3:45:38 PM

Piss poor reading comprehension

Quote :

"I didn't say I agreed with the judge's decision to jail the lawyer in this particular case. Nor am I saying I agree with the way courts use the United States' Pledge of Allegiance."

Quote :

"hypothetical free and fair courtroom"

10/11/2010 3:50:53 PM

Quote :

"The pledge of allegiance is at it's very core contrary to the ideals of the United States as set forth by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Furthermore the pledge holds no legal weight, is not in any way legally binding, and its recitation is not required for anyone at anytime."

Well put.

10/11/2010 3:59:48 PM

Quote :

"it is possible for a pledge to be necessary in a fair and free justice system"

Not really. You're insinuating that by failure to recite said pledge, then you would fall out of this legal system. What then? Do you just live your own personal anarchy because you have opted out of the system? In that case, the pledge was necessary for the legal system but not necessary for your freedom. On the other hand, if failure to recite the pledge results in your incarceration, then you really didn't need it for the system to function in the first place did you?

10/11/2010 4:59:22 PM

the only people for whom i could see a pledge being necessary are those who serve the federal gov't: judges, soldiers, civil servants, elected officials, etc.

[Edited on October 12, 2010 at 8:21 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2010 8:21:04 AM

Quote :

"Not really. You're insinuating that by failure to recite said pledge, then you would fall out of this legal system. What then? Do you just live your own personal anarchy because you have opted out of the system?"

I didn't speculate about the consequences of not reciting a pledge. I'm pointing out that such a pledge can have a purpose in reducing moral ambiguity, just like swearing to tell the truth or reading the Miranda Warning. It also serves a ceremonial and philosphical purpose: to reaffirm the authority of government and law.

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.

If a pledge is unneccesary because it's content is presumed to be true, then what is fascist about it? Honest question; this could be a no-brainer.

[Edited on October 12, 2010 at 8:57 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2010 8:41:19 AM

^
Please don't ask questions until you've answered all of ours. It makes us less likely to answer you.

10/12/2010 9:45:23 AM

You're not the boss of me. Go back to slobbing Kurtis' e-knob

10/12/2010 9:53:57 AM