pledge of allegiance=unconstitutional
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 2,070
Car Info: 1995 Impreza L
pledge of allegiance=unconstitutional
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/...11282339c.html
Judge: School pledge is unconstitutional
Judge: School pledge is unconstitutional
Originally Posted by DAVID KRAVET Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 7:57 pm PDT Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Last Updated 7:57 pm PDT Wednesday, September 14, 2005
A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
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."
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.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Newdow hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the high court.
"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told The Associated Press.
"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said.
"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
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."
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.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Newdow hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the high court.
"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told The Associated Press.
"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said.
"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.
Last edited by pbchief2; 09-14-2005 at 09:47 PM.
#2
This is BULLS***. I can't believe someone would say that. That's very disrepectful. I had a friend that was a Jahova's Witness in grade school. He did not recite the allegiance, but had still be taught to respect others and stand with the class. For someone to say that The Pledge Of Allegiance is Unconstiutional is treason.(sp?)
#4
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Good change it back to the way it ****ing was before the whole red scare bull****...
**** those mother****ers who took it upon themselves to change **** to suit their own selfish ****ing desire.
Those are the god damn ****ing traitors to this country, selfish ****ing *******s. **** THEM!
**** those mother****ers who took it upon themselves to change **** to suit their own selfish ****ing desire.
Those are the god damn ****ing traitors to this country, selfish ****ing *******s. **** THEM!
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Being stalked by Salty
Posts: 691
Car Info: Looking for a Liberty CRD
It was certainly unconstitutional for congress to insert "under god" into the pledge.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Check back on previous threads.... we had some intense discussions about a year ago.
My thoughts:
- Adding "under God" in 1954 was, indeed, unconstitutional and doesnt need to be in the pledge. I shouldnt have to be reminded of my own faith, and I dont care if others do or dont mumble something that they dont believe in
- The guy who initially brought this up is a tool and has wasted a lot of money (in court time) for his own gain. He comes off as this crusader of civil liberties, but he quickly revealed himself as an attention grubbing *****. If he was really about promoting civul liberties, he should have invested himself into things that are entirely more productive
Just my .o2
My thoughts:
- Adding "under God" in 1954 was, indeed, unconstitutional and doesnt need to be in the pledge. I shouldnt have to be reminded of my own faith, and I dont care if others do or dont mumble something that they dont believe in
- The guy who initially brought this up is a tool and has wasted a lot of money (in court time) for his own gain. He comes off as this crusader of civil liberties, but he quickly revealed himself as an attention grubbing *****. If he was really about promoting civul liberties, he should have invested himself into things that are entirely more productive
Just my .o2
#9
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I just don't see a need to change it. If we changed it for whatever reason in 1954 then that's just as much part of American History than how it was before then. But I suppose changing it again would become a part of our history as well so it's irrelevant….
But what I really don't understand is how that phrase has become as meaningful to non-believers as it has to Christians. If it truly means nothing to these people then they should have no problem saying it without meaning. It should be nothing more than a word in the dictionary to these people.
Hell, I've been doing it since my beliefs were altered in the 5th grade! Even when I was in the military the Battalion Commanders would say a prayer just prior to an airborne or air assault mission. I was right there praying with the entire battalion out of respect and likewise for a couple of my atheist counterparts. I even had one Battalion Commander for a short while that was a bonafide atheist according to those that were close to him. I remember verifying his dogtags (which said "no religious pref") and ID card during pre-jump along with everyone down to the cherry private (it was how you recorded a jump - there was a barcode you scanned on the back of the ID). But still, he got on top of the rigging bench and said a prayer knowing that most where Christian.
It think it often boils down to the immature, adulterated hatred the left and these activists have for anything that can be remotely connected to the good ole boy mentality. Bottom line.
But what I really don't understand is how that phrase has become as meaningful to non-believers as it has to Christians. If it truly means nothing to these people then they should have no problem saying it without meaning. It should be nothing more than a word in the dictionary to these people.
Hell, I've been doing it since my beliefs were altered in the 5th grade! Even when I was in the military the Battalion Commanders would say a prayer just prior to an airborne or air assault mission. I was right there praying with the entire battalion out of respect and likewise for a couple of my atheist counterparts. I even had one Battalion Commander for a short while that was a bonafide atheist according to those that were close to him. I remember verifying his dogtags (which said "no religious pref") and ID card during pre-jump along with everyone down to the cherry private (it was how you recorded a jump - there was a barcode you scanned on the back of the ID). But still, he got on top of the rigging bench and said a prayer knowing that most where Christian.
It think it often boils down to the immature, adulterated hatred the left and these activists have for anything that can be remotely connected to the good ole boy mentality. Bottom line.
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by svxr8dr
I still don't understand how "Under God" endorses a religion
You've forced them to compromise. Now they'd much rather write-off all the other insignificant religions in this country as a small price to pay to rid of the Christian mentality.
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Being stalked by Salty
Posts: 691
Car Info: Looking for a Liberty CRD
Originally Posted by svxr8dr
I still don't understand how "Under God" endorses a religion
#13
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
Originally Posted by lojasmo
It doesn't endorse "a religion"....It endorses theism. Every religion but one....atheism.
Then I imagine the USSC will overturn this decision (as they do with most 9th Circuit decisions) since the clause is specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
I CANT TAKE IT!!
In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship. The phrase "nation, under God" previously appeared in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and echoes the Declaration of Independence. On June 8, 1954, Congress adopted this change.