Poconoeagle wrote:"Since that time, all presidents have returned the salutes of military personnel, but saluting the flag has remained a mixed bag, with most Presidents holding their hand over their heart. "
http://www.treppenwitz.com/2009/01/a-fi ... ibute.html
But for most of us, it is ingrained from a very early age that being in civilian clothes means holding our hand over our hearts. Period. I remember that when I was in kindergarten and elementary school, we began every morning by reciting the pledge of allegiance. We would stand, face the flag hanging in the corner of the room, place our right hand over our hearts and recite in unison "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Unites States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
In later grades the pledge of allegiance disappeared from the morning routine, but because we were attending sporting events, assemblies and the occasional parade, the playing of the national anthem sort of assumed the role that the POA had played in our patriotic consciousness.
stockingfull wrote:The Pledge is like an oath. The Anthem, OTOH, is a song in honor of a famous battle, which contains no language of fealty comparable to the Pledge.
coalkirk wrote:Regan was the essence of patriotic.
smokeyCityTeacher wrote:coalkirk wrote:He managed to do it in Russia.
What song, pledge, ritual etc was playing, being recited etc at the time of this photo ?
stockingfull wrote:When history is written, the beginning of the end of American prosperity will be traced to his foolhardy deficit spending, the beginning of "globalization" (another term for the Wall St casinos and saying to workers that the Chinese can have your job if they can do it cheaper) and his infamous and discredited "trickle-down," "voodoo" economics.
mikeandgerry wrote:stockingfull wrote:Hardly. You think Bush v. Gore and Citizens United are "conservative" or "literal" interpretations of the Constitution?
You really really want to open up that debate again? The one where in the first round, Bush v Palm Beach SCOTUS was unanimous in their remand because the FSC was blatantly wrong, and in which they determined that the Feds had plenary power in a national election? That one?
Or did you mean the second round, Bush v Gore where they held in the 6-3 per curiam decision that Gore's desire to recount only the counties that were advantageous to him was a violation of the 14th amendment?
Mike, I meant that election law is a matter that, until Bush v. Gore, was right down "Federalist Main St," in that it was a classic "states' rights" issue, where, in the absence of a clear "textual" justification, "judicial restraint" required that the federal judiciary keep its "activist" hands off.
If I could have been inside just ONE SCOTUS case conference in all the time I've studied the law, that's the one I'd have wanted. No surprise that the December 12, 2000 per curiam opinion contained the infamous "limited to the present circumstances" phrase, since the otherwise-conservative Equal Protection Clause justices suddenly and inexplicably became liberal on applying that clause -- but only for one case.
Here's a little primer for ya:
Now, with Citizens United unloosing corporate bucks on elections, the real Trojan Horse has been revealed: the "conservative bloc" isn't conservative at all; it's a group of Constitutional saboteurs there to hijack the system and perpetuate the rule of the moneyed class in this country.
Never again will the term "activist judges" stick to lefties concerned with picayune things like a woman's right to privacy.
franco b wrote:Yeah I remember the good old days of jimmy Carter. The pompous posturing manikin you worship is sure to fix all these things. Please keep your profane hands off Saint Ronald.