Air Force dumps ‘so help me God’ from enlistment oath

[Solar]

Is it too much to expect people to read exactly what I said without adding things I never said?  If you read my previous posts in their entirety, I never claimed there was no religious language in all relevant documents to the creation of this nation. My exact words were that the Constitution was a secular document, which it is! I know the Declaration of Independence references a generic "creator" in it's opening words, but the document responsible for creating our current government (The Constitution) is secular.

Also, although this has nothing to do with my previous post (which is 100% factual), the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document for our current system of government. I can provide you citations to Supreme Court Cases dating back over a century which also state this.

(1) After the Declaration, the States were semi-independent, and under the governance of the Continental Congress (our first government). That system was inadequate and short lived.

(2) Our second government was formed with the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, and the election of a President of the Confederated Congress of the United States of America, and a new congress to represent the new government. However, that system also failed miserably, leading to the need for a Constitutional Convention in 1787.

(3) Finally our current government began with the ratification of the Constitution, and the election of new representatives and a President of the United States of America in 1788 (George Washington)...over 12 years after the Declaration of Independence.

Finally, yes, I am 29. So what? I have a bachelor of arts in History, and a Juris Doctor (practicing attorney for 3 years here in Florida), so I fail to see your point. Is that supposed to be an insult?

Yes, your youth plays a huge part regarding historical reference, of which, you have very little.

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.

Therefore the documents were the building blocks of the nation.

"By Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America"

Also note the word Blessings."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Refer to the Declaration for interpretation.

[Skeptic]

The National Association of Lawyers is a private right leaning lawyer's group, and not any legal authority on the matter. Not that it bothers me, because I am myself a member of two conservative legal groups, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that their opinions are just that...opinions.

The only private legal groups who have the power to affect lawyers and the practice of law are the Bar Associations of each state and the American Bar Association. All these other private organizations, including the ones I belong to, are hobbies and activist groups to which one gives a few hours in their free time, but honestly have no real power except the power to lobby.

Anyway, The oldest Supreme Court case to state that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the current American government was Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199. This was in 1796, when George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founding fathers were still alive and active in politics. That legal precedent has not changed in 218 years.

PS: Highlighting Year of our Lord doesn't bother me. I went to a Catholic university, even though I'm an atheist, and I proudly display my Diploma with the words Year of Our Lord written on it. I do not have anything against Christianity, but I am a pro-secularist when it comes to public policy and the services the government provides to it's citizens because I believe in our secular Constitution.

[supsalemgr]

The National Association of Lawyers is a private right leaning lawyer's group, and not any legal authority on the matter. Not that it bothers me, because I am myself a member of two conservative legal groups, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that their opinions are just that...opinions.

The only private legal groups who have the power to affect lawyers and the practice of law are the Bar Associations of each state and the American Bar Association. All these other private organizations, including the ones I belong to, are hobbies and activist groups to which one gives a few hours in their free time, but honestly have no real power except the power to lobby.

Anyway, The oldest Supreme Court case to state that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the current American government was Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199. This was in 1796, when George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founding fathers were still alive and active in politics. That legal precedent has not changed in 218 years.

PS: Highlighting Year of our Lord doesn't bother me. I went to a Catholic university, even though I'm an atheist, and I proudly display my Diploma with the words Year of Our Lord written on it. I do not have anything against Christianity, but I am a pro-secularist when it comes to public policy and the services the government provides to it's citizens because I believe in our secular Constitution.

Thank you clearing up exactly where you are coming from.

[Solar]

The National Association of Lawyers is a private right leaning lawyer's group, and not any legal authority on the matter. Not that it bothers me, because I am myself a member of two conservative legal groups, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that their opinions are just that...opinions.

The only private legal groups who have the power to affect lawyers and the practice of law are the Bar Associations of each state and the American Bar Association. All these other private organizations, including the ones I belong to, are hobbies and activist groups to which one gives a few hours in their free time, but honestly have no real power except the power to lobby.

So what? Didn't say they did, but like all lawyers, they all have opinions, and could very easily have taken majority opinion in SCOTUS, completely negating your argument.

Anyway, The oldest Supreme Court case to state that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the current American government was Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199. This was in 1796, when George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other founding fathers were still alive and active in politics. That legal precedent has not changed in 218 years.

Irrelevant. Jones was was trying to skate on a debt to the King, the courts invalidated his claim as bogus and in no way played a part in proving the Declaration of Independence was invalid.

PS: Highlighting Year of our Lord doesn't bother me. I went to a Catholic university, even though I'm an atheist, and I proudly display my Diploma with the words Year of Our Lord written on it. I do not have anything against Christianity, but I am a pro-secularist when it comes to public policy and the services the government provides to it's citizens because I believe in our secular Constitution.

Point being, and this is where I referred to historical reference, this nation has always been a Christian Nation, hence the First Amendment as a protection from govt.
It was a given that the majority of the people believed in God, and the fact that they included it when referencing a date using the term Lord, is proof of the fact.

I say historical reference to your youth, because in my youth, nearly everyone went to worship on Sunday, it was only in the mid to late 60s did this all change, for the worst I might add.
By no fault of your own, you wouldn't know this, but today is 180 degrees from last century, but prior to that, this has always been a Christian nation.

Take note. unalienable rights. The "unalienable rights" explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one's own property, the right to be secure in one's own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.

Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure.

Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What are those unalienable rights with which we are endowed? They may be described in many ways, but English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1766, ".these may be reduced to three principal articles:

the right of personal security (life);
the right of personal liberty; and,
the right of private property.."
America's written Constitution was to protect and secure God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property. If we ever allow this foundation to be eroded and lose faith that these rights are a gift directly from God to each individual, then we lose the basis of the greatness of the miracle of America.

Even the ACLU makes the link of unalienable rights. So you can't claim there isn't precedent.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history

[Skeptic]

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)

"We find, therefore, upon the law of positive authority, as well as upon a principle of natural justice, that even the declaration of independence was deemed to have no obligatory operation upon any inhabitant of the United States, who did not choose, voluntarily to remain in the country, or to take an oath of allegiance, to some member of the confederation."

and

"In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth."

What the Supreme Court said in this case was that at this point (1776 thru 1781) under international law, were 13 separate and individual nations, each with separate and independent sovereign capacities, not one nation. So therefore, the Declaration of Independence did not establish our current government (which is what I've said, the Declaration is not a founding document of our current system of government.)

And this from Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

What the Supreme Court says here is that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States of America. However, it does embody the spirit of freedom of the United States of America and as such it is "always safer to read the letter of the Constitution in the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence." However, it clearly states that it is not organic law and has no basis for judicial decisions.

This is the Doctrine of Declarationism which is what the Supreme Court still seems to adhere to this day. The Declaration is not a legal document, but it's spirit of freedom and equality embodies the ideals of our Government, and therefore it is wise not to ignore the principles of freedom and equality found in it when trying to interpret the Constitution of the United States. But the fact remains that the Declaration itself is not a legal document.

Maybe it will change one day. Wouldn't be surprised to see some future Supreme Court channel the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and say the Declaration is a legal document. Who knows. I don't have a crystal ball.

[Solar]

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)

and

What the Supreme Court said in this case was that at this point (1776 thru 1781) under international law, were 13 separate and individual nations, each with separate and independent sovereign capacities, not one nation. So therefore, the Declaration of Independence did not establish our current government (which is what I've said, the Declaration is not a founding document of our current system of government.)

And this from Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

What the Supreme Court says here is that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States of America. However, it does embody the spirit of freedom of the United States of America and as such it is "always safer to read the letter of the Constitution in the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence." However, it clearly states that it is not organic law and has no basis for judicial decisions.

This is the Doctrine of Declarationism which is what the Supreme Court still seems to adhere to this day. The Declaration is not a legal document, but it's spirit of freedom and equality embodies the ideals of our Government, and therefore it is wise not to ignore the principles of freedom and equality found in it when trying to interpret the Constitution of the United States. But the fact remains that the Declaration itself is not a legal document.

Maybe it will change one day. Wouldn't be surprised to see some future Supreme Court channel the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and say the Declaration is a legal document. Who knows. I don't have a crystal ball.

None of which was the point of the case of someone trying to default on a debt.
The fact that the Declaration led to war, quite plainly speaks to it's validity that we had just become a Sovereign Nation of respective states, independent or otherwise.

As with all projects, legal authority begins with inception of the first draft, and as an attorney, you should know this if you've ever done discovery.
A case always begins with first evidence proving birth of the incident, and in the case of establishing the U.S, the Declaration is evidence of this pursuit.

[Skeptic]

None of which was the point of the case of someone trying to default on a debt.
The fact that the Declaration led to war, quite plainly speaks to it's validity that we had just become a Sovereign Nation of respective states, independent or otherwise.

As with all projects, legal authority begins with inception of the first draft, and as an attorney, you should know this if you've ever done discovery.
A case always begins with first evidence proving birth of the incident, and in the case of establishing the U.S, the Declaration is evidence of this pursuit.

Discovery has nothing to do with the filing of a complaint or petition, which is the beginning of a case, and the rest of what you said is well....let's just say that its clear you've never practiced law a day in your life. A better example would have been to compare the Declaration to personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, etc., (the issue of standing to bring and support a cause of action in front of a court of law.)

Look, I may only be practicing law for 3 years, but I have experience working with 100+ foreclosure cases, 8 or 9 family law cases, 6 or 7 criminal  cases, dozens of traffic misdemeanor cases, and 9 bankruptcy cases, plus one appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida, and I assure you none of what you described in your example makes much sense legally.

But then again, you are not a lawyer, and that's a good thing. There are too many of us lawyers as it is, and considering most politicians are lawyers, I say we do too much damage as a profession as it is, so there is no need to sink to a lawyer's level (which is lower than pond scum, or so I've been told) to prove your point. 

[Solar]

Discovery has nothing to do with the filing of a complaint or petition, which is the beginning of a case, and the rest of what you said is well....let's just say that its clear you've never practiced law a day in your life. A better example would have been to compare the Declaration to personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, etc., (the issue of standing to bring and support a cause of action in front of a court of law.)

Look, I may only be practicing law for 3 years, but I have experience working with 100+ foreclosure cases, 8 or 9 family law cases, 6 or 7 criminal  cases, dozens of traffic misdemeanor cases, and 9 bankruptcy cases, plus one appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida, and I assure you none of what you described in your example makes much sense legally.

But then again, you are not a lawyer, and that's a good thing. There are too many of us lawyers as it is, and considering most politicians are lawyers, I say we do too much damage as a profession as it is, so there is no need to sink to a lawyer's level (which is lower than pond scum, or so I've been told) to prove your point. 

I know what you're saying, but the Declaration of Independence, was a declaration of war in how the British viewed it, which was the establishment of a new Nation.
Anyone with half a brain can see there is no disconnecting our Nation from the original Declaration of Independence.

As to discovery, every attorney/DA knows you include all evidence in a case. That includes the first encounter between plaintiff and the accused.
Of course all good attorneys will try and have said evidence removed, but none the less, it still gets introduced.

I too am no stranger to the legal system having been a professional witness on several occasions as well as a representative of the people of the state.

[Skeptic]

I know what you're saying, but the Declaration of Independence, was a declaration of war in how the British viewed it, which was the establishment of a new Nation.
Anyone with half a brain can see there is no disconnecting our Nation from the original Declaration of Independence.

As to discovery, every attorney/DA knows you include all evidence in a case. That includes the first encounter between plaintiff and the accused.
Of course all good attorneys will try and have said evidence removed, but none the less, it still gets introduced.

I too am no stranger to the legal system having been a professional witness on several occasions as well as a representative of the people of the state.

Quick point at the risk of being off topic. In civil law you don't include all evidence with the complaint. Criminal law is a whole other animal, and the state has to disclose everything, But in civil law you include what you are legally required to include according to the statutes to avoid the other guy being able to file and win on a Motion to Dismiss, plus whatever evidence looks good to your case, and as to the rest of the evidence (whatever is not as good for your case) you let them figure it out through depositions, requests for admissions, requests for interrogatories, and requests for production. No need to hand the other side everything in a silver platter. Let them work for it during the discovery process. If they forgot to request something that might have mitigated their liability or didn't bother to try to uncover it, oh well, better for my client. As long as the complaint is not frivolous, and the statutes don't require I disclose something, then it's all good. Just make sure the complaint was never frivolous in the first place, and you have an actual legal basis to stand on, because that's where you and your client can get in a heap of trouble.

[Solar]

Quick point at the risk of being off topic. In civil law you don't include all evidence with the complaint. Criminal law is a whole other animal, and the state has to disclose everything, But in civil law you include what you are legally required to include according to the statutes to avoid the other guy being able to file and win on a Motion to Dismiss, plus whatever evidence looks good to your case, and as to the rest of the evidence (whatever is not as good for your case) you let them figure it out through depositions, requests for admissions, requests for interrogatories, and requests for production. No need to hand the other side everything in a silver platter. Let them work for it during the discovery process. If they forgot to request something that might have mitigated their liability or didn't bother to try to uncover it, oh well, better for my client. As long as the complaint is not frivolous, and the statutes don't require I disclose something, then it's all good. Just make sure the complaint was never frivolous in the first place, and you have an actual legal basis to stand on, because that's where you and your client can get in a heap of trouble.

True and concise.
See, we can agree on somethings.

[Michelle]

Call me silly and that's okay, but does anyone really believe they are going to win a debate on the law when debating with a lawyer?

The point I wanted to make is the military oath.

It is a fact that atheists can make good military people.  One does not have to be Christian to be an honest, decent, military person willing to risk life and limb for their country.  Now, if this isn't a fact, feel free to prove me wrong.  One can love their country and not believe in the Christian God, the two do not go hand in hand.  I do understand and I do realize there is a great deal of ignorance regarding atheism, but common sense has to kick in at some point.

What I am gathering from this thread is that people would prefer a soldier lie and swear to a God they have no belief exists than to mess with tradition or he's not a good soldier.  It's okay to "affirm" but better to lie when swearing to a God.

Do I have that right?

[Solar]

Call me silly and that's okay, but does anyone really believe they are going to win a debate on the law when debating with a lawyer?

The point I wanted to make is the military oath.

It is a fact that atheists can make good military people.  One does not have to be Christian to be an honest, decent, military person willing to risk life and limb for their country.  Now, if this isn't a fact, feel free to prove me wrong.  One can love their country and not believe in the Christian God, the two do not go hand in hand.  I do understand and I do realize there is a great deal of ignorance regarding atheism, but common sense has to kick in at some point.

What I am gathering from this thread is that people would prefer a soldier lie and swear to a God they have no belief exists than to mess with tradition or he's not a good soldier.  It's okay to "affirm" but better to lie when swearing to a God.

Do I have that right?

Show me where Christ is mentioned in the oath Military inductees swear to.

[Skeptic]

Show me where Christ is mentioned in the oath Military inductees swear to.

Christ doesn't have to be mentioned. Some religions have a lose concept of the idea of a God or Gods (Daoism, spiritualist religions, etc) and others simply don't believe in a God, so no need to force them to swear on something they don't believe to make you feel better.

[taxed]

Call me silly and that's okay, but does anyone really believe they are going to win a debate on the law when debating with a lawyer?

Yes.  It's about experience.

[taxed]

We are not a Christian nation. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of any gods, and the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing any religion. The Constitution itself only mentions religion once, to state that there cannot be any religious tests for someone running for office.

Were most founding fathers traditionally Christian? Probably, although a good chunk of them were probably Deists more than anything. Has Christianity been the predominant religion? Sure, and it still is with around 78% of Americans identifying as Christians. But that does not make the Constitution any less secular than it is.

Do you celebrate Christmas?