usahog
  • usahog
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
22 years ago
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance 

3 minutes ago
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.


At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.


The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.


Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.


Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.


"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote for the court.


"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."


The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.


Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) agreed with him.


The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath.


The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.


Newdow's daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.


The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.


The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."


The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."


The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.





The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.

It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.

Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.

The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.

On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight.

"The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional."

Newdow had numerous backers at the high court, although they were outnumbered by legal briefs in favor of keeping the wording of the pledge as it is.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is disappointed.

"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come back in the future," Lynn said. "Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country."

On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.

"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel.

Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

Enjoy!!!!
Hog
bloody spaniard
22 years ago
^ A miracle!!!
billyjackson
22 years ago
Understand....this decision was not about "under God"...it was about Newdow's legal standing to bring the argument. Because of his circumstances, it was decided that he was not in legal standing to bring the case.

However, if another parent, not in a custody battle or other disqualifying situation, is able to get the Sup. Ct. to hear his or her appeal (should it make it that far), the Court will have to decide on the "under God" issue.

Perhaps this is their way of skirting the issue...perhaps it is just the way the legal ball had to bounce in this case.
Robby
22 years ago
It will be challenged again... The biggest trick the devil ever played on man was convincing people he doesn't exist...
MACS
22 years ago
These whack-jobs that bring up these lawsuits piss me off. Why should the friggin minority win out? We lost the pledge of allegiance already and I will guaran-f***ing-ty you that more people were for it than against it.

Prayer in school? Don't get me started... so you're an atheist and it offends you that the other kids are praying and you don't want your kid to see it?? Home school the heathen fu**er!

Why is our country going to hell in a handbasket?? Because we are "ruling" out everything this country was founded on. FREEDOM OF RELIGION. That means MY religion too dammit!!!
DrMaddVibe
22 years ago
With Liberty and Justice for all!
bassdude
22 years ago
So if we are the majority why don't we do anything about it?
nfldraftman
22 years ago
The constitution was written as much to protect the minority as it was the majority (if not more). Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't make it correct. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it is something that needs to be remembered.
Robby
22 years ago
draftman, bingo. You are absolutely correct. If it were simply majority rule, you could have some pretty bad situations like slavery. However, by the same token, the whole "separation" issue is blown way out of proportion. The constitution says that government shall not sanction a state sponsored religion. Not that we cannot recognize God.
johnfs
22 years ago
puskarich
22 years ago
What amazes me about the Pledge is that it was never copyrighted by Francis Bellamy. If you read about the history of the Pledge, you'll find he had some passionate views regarding certain things. Despite many protests by Francis, the Pledge was modified many times prior to Congress adding "under God" to it in the 1950s.

I read somewhere where some pro-lifers want to change the Pledge to read the following:

"with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn."

No joke. I guess if everyone had their way, the Pledge would be changed so much, it would never resemble it's initial form.

BTW, I think they should leave "under God" in the Pledge. But that is just me.
billyjackson
22 years ago
Personally, I'm fine with leaving the phrase in the Pledge. What I don't understand is why it is said in schools at all. Though no one is "forced" to recite it, having it recited in schools to begin with baffles me. I don't like anything that makes kids mundanely chant some memorized mantra to ANYTHING! The Pledge doesn't teach patriotism or respect for heritage. It's just something else on the schedule. That's something the Pledge and other memorization acts do to themselves. You can't help but become desensitized after a while.

***come on all you patriots. Tell me how I'm not a good american or whatever because I 1) don't want the Pledge recited in school at all and 2) I'm desensitized to the pledge. Your assaults are welcomed by my own idiocy of actually trying to post on the MISC board. I thought I'd learned!!!!****
usahog
  • usahog
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
22 years ago
Billy, you been drinkin again? go to your room and close the door!!!! LMAO!!!

Hog
Users browsing this topic