Federal Judge Rules Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional
From Fox News:
SAN FRANCISCO — Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.My Comments:
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
This is the kind of judge the left would love to see on the Supreme Court - the kind of judge who believes the Constitution bans any reference to God whatsoever from the public square. The Founding Fathers who actually wrote the 1st Amendment obviously didn't believe in such nonsense as what Father Neuhaus refers to as the "naked public square".
But such are the results - just like the federal court decision today - when you insist upon having a "living Constitution".
posted by Pro Ecclesia 3:12 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
"Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of."
Actually, I though the Supreme Court reversed.
Certiorari Denied by
5 Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 540 U.S. 962, 124 S.Ct. 386, 157 L.Ed.2d 304, 72 USLW 3092, 72 USLW 3264, 72 USLW 3268 (U.S. Oct 14, 2003) (NO. 03-7)
AND Judgment Reversed by
6 Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98, 72 USLW 4457, 188 Ed. Law Rep. 17, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5083, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7022, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 359 (U.S. Jun 14, 2004) (NO. 02-1624)
Rehearing Denied by
7 Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 125 S.Ct. 21, 159 L.Ed.2d 851, 73 USLW 3121 (U.S. Aug 23, 2004) (NO. 02-1624)
It's the right decision. "Under God" is an endorsement of religion.
Also, those two words are not part of the American tradition. They were added in the 1950s to show how much better than the Soviets we were.
Gee, Local Man, how old does something have to be to qualify as "part of American tradition"?
"The Star-Spangled Banner" wasn't adopted as our national anthem until 1931. Is it part of "American tradition"?
Brown v. Board of Education was decided in the 1950s. Is non-discrimination part of "American tradition"?
Thanksgiving has been a national holiday (I believe) since the Lincoln administration. To whom are we, as a nation, giving thanks?
From http://underthenews.blogspot.com ...
A federal judge in California has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the pledge’s reference to “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
OK, it's California, where a guy with a petition to repeal the suffrage of hamsters could get 10,000 signatures in 30 minutes. It's ironic that ours is a nation where burning the flag is defended as free speech, but kids saying "under God" should be gagged. But really, is this the most pressing issue before a nation at war, a nation rabbit-punched by a hurricane, and a nation with a big al Qaeda target painted on its back?
On one hand, if God intended to reward us for including him in our daily affirmations before class, He might go a little easier on the hurricanes. I mean, don't you think that admitting we're "one nation under God" should invite some tender mercies?
On the other hand, maybe He doesn't care what we force schoolkids to say out loud, and is more interested in how we conduct ourselves when nobody else is looking.
Who knows? The Lord hasn't really been keeping up his blog, so we're not sure what He's thinking. But I can tell you what I'm thinking: These attention-starved atheists are starting to be as annoying as megawatt televangelists.
I agree with local man.
The Star-Spangled Banner, Brown, and Thanksgiving are all things consistent with American values.
McCarthyism, not so much.
Besides, it's somewhat of an offense to the original writer of the pledge, who was a Christian who didn't want religion to cheapened by political matters the way people did in the 1950's, and the way they did today
How about doing it while silent! As barrister said, This isn't about left or right, it's about what's unconstitutional and what's not. Pledge is unconstitutional, in our public schools.
"McCarthyism, not so much [consistent with American values]"
You might want to let the Dems on the Judiciary Committee know that. They're under the impression that "deeply held religious beliefs" and/or ties to the Federalist Society disqualify one from serving on the federal judiciary.
Two hundred and thirty years ago a number of His Majesty, King George III’s subjects decided to rebel against their sovereign. These men undoubtedly believed that such a rebellion was a crime (against man and God) unless they had concrete moral justification. They commissioned Thomas Jefferson to draft a declaration, in which, with only minor alterations, they signed. It was the Declaration of Independence. In that declaration/justification they affirmed their belief that rights come from God, not the sovereign.
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.
In the eyes of the founders of this great nation, they had no right to form a new government without moral justification. To pretend that the Constitution prohibits religion from public life is to deny the very justification for its own existence.
To pretend that your rights are derived from the Constitution is to sell yourself out. The Constitution is supposed to be a means to secure your God-given rights and to read into the Constitution a right to be free from what the Constitution is set up to guarantee is just asinine. It really is asking for something to operate contrary to its own nature.
The Constitution makes no mention of Jesus. But that doesn't stop the otherwise "originalist" right from concocting a reason for inserting Him into our public schools with reasoning like this:
The Constitution is supposed to be a means to secure your God-given rights and to read into the Constitution a right to be free from what the Constitution is set up to guarantee is just asinine.
Huh? You're chasing your tail.
"The Constitution makes no mention of Jesus."
Neither does the Pledge of Allegiance.
Local man,
I don’t think anybody claimed that the Constitution mentions Jesus. Congratulations on creating a straw-man (not implying Our Lord himself), to handily beat down. You must be very proud of yourself.
Perhaps I failed to communicate clearly, or perhaps you just can’t see absurdity in claiming that the Constitution effectively outlaws God from the public sphere. The text of the Constitution says no such thing, and any attempt to divine such a concept fails when you consider what the framers believed and intended the Constitution to do.
The point of the quoted sentence was that the tail-chasing is done by those who would claim that the Constitution grants them a right to have any mention of God removed from the governance of this nation when in fact the justification for this republic was the framer’s conformity to God’s law (as they understood it). Any divination of intent of the Constitution must take into account the history surrounding it.
Rick, the Constitution prohibits government endorsement of religion, which is exactly what the phrase, "under God," does. Public school kids are forced to recite the pledge.
Also, as you obviously know, the Constitution has a rich and varied history. We could get into a battle of the quotes, pitting the Founders against one another, that would take up quite a bit of bandwidth. The fact remains that if they'd wanted the United States to be a religious, rather than secular, country, they would have said so in the Constitution.
Nice -- but failed -- effort to make me look anti-Christian: Jesus isn't a straw man in this debate. People who are adamant about issues like keeping "under God" in the Pledge want Christianity as a national religion. All of this hand-wringing by conservatives isn't being done by, or for the benefit of Jews, Muslims or members of any other religion.
I realize you'll deny that until you're blue in the face, but you know it's true.
In any case, are you really concerned about how this will turn out when the Supreme Court finally has a crack at it?
"... the Constitution prohibits government endorsement of religion ..."
Local Man,
You know better than that. The 1st Amendment prohibits the "establishment" of an official state religion (e.g., Anglicanism). "Endorsement" or "recognition" of God and/or religion in general, does NOT equal "establishment".
The Court's jurisprudence in this area cannot be reconiled with either the text of the 1st Amendment or the intent of those who framed it. The framers would quite likely be horrified at the Court's current direction in this area of the law.
Local man,
You are confusing the words establishment and endorsement. I can see how people can make that error, but there is a difference and the best way to discern the difference is by an understanding of the 18th century and European history up to that point.
The intention of the establishment clause is to ensure that the government not institutes an official religion, as was the practice throughout Europe. I know of nobody who is suggesting that Congress proclaim the Church of England (or any other) as the official faith of the United States.
That is a far cry from having the children who are benefiting (?) from public education recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Our history is riddled with examples of an intermixing the acknowledgement of God (however generic it may be) with governance. As stated, it was present before, during and after the Revolution. It was present during the Continental Congresses, during the Constitutional Convention and BOTH sides of the debates over the Constitution. After ratification of the Constitution, we see it everywhere in the Federal Government (Ten Commandments at the SCOTUS, prayers before sessions of congress, oaths before God, on and on it goes).
LOL, Jay.
Honest I wasn't being a copycat. It took me too long to draft that comment to be plagiarism. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home