Here we go again - Federal Judge Rules Reciting Pledge in Schools Unconstitutional

Woodmonkey · 09-14-2005, 21:56

Quote:

Federal Judge Rules Reciting Pledge in Schools Unconstitutional

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional.

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." The judge has granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 (search) that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

"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 in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.

"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."

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.

Karlton 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.

Steven Ladd, superintendent of the Elk Grove Unified School District, said the district's school board has long supported allowing students to recite the pledge.

"We will continue to recite the pledge until ordered by the courts not to do so," Ladd said.

The board will consider the ruling at its next board meeting scheduled for Sept. 20, Ladd said.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — 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.

Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for FOX News, said the ruling will not directly effect the rest of the nation, only Sacramento.

"There are federal judges who have ruled elsewhere in the U.S. the exact opposite of the way this federal judge has,” Napolitano said, but “this case only affects the area of California in which he [the judge] sits.”

He added that he expects appeals from the school districts, which then will make their way to the Supreme Court.

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 is Newdow v. Congress, 05-17.

Click here for the source
of this article

Snowden · 09-14-2005, 22:17

Two words - my how very harmful those two words! They "harm" the atheists, ergo they cannot be said. You know this is absolutely asinine. It's not only taking away any reference to God - whoever is worshipped - it is denying those children any real feeling of love and patriotism for this nation.

And that is dangerous. The two words are not - but to take it all away is not good.

Anybody who thinks this nation is a democracy, or a Democratic Republic as it was designed to be, is wrong. No Democratic government and certainly no Democratic Republic, is ruled by the minorities. This is the danger - this is the threat, or one of them, to all we hold dear. And these judges make law and get away with it, which is unconstitutional.

Where are our representatives? Are there any for us? Why is this allowed to continue?

It won't happen in my lifetime - but we all have children, and it could happen in your children's lifetimes. We could lose it all because the minorities are taking over; and you add up all the various minorities and they become a majority. Trust me, once they're firmly ensconsed in the drivers' seats, they will remain there.

Woodmonkey · 09-14-2005, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowden

Two words - my how very harmful those two words! They "harm" the atheists, ergo they cannot be said. You know this is absolutely asinine. It's not only taking away any reference to God - whoever is worshipped - it is denying those children any real feeling of love and patriotism for this nation.

This is not 'the atheists' speaking, this is one man who has an agenda. My father was an Atheist and he would never support anything like this.

Quote:

Anybody who thinks this nation is a democracy, or a Democratic Republic as it was designed to be, is wrong. No Democratic government and certainly no Democratic Republic, is ruled by the minorities. This is the danger - this is the threat, or one of them, to all we hold dear. And these judges make law and get away with it, which is unconstitutional.

It's too early for that. This still has to make its way through the court system. So far, it is not a case of making law, but interpreting it. This is not the last word.

Quote:

It won't happen in my lifetime - but we all have children, and it could happen in your children's lifetimes. We could lose it all because the minorities are taking over; and you add up all the various minorities and they become a majority. Trust me, once they're firmly ensconsed in the drivers' seats, they will remain there.

The minorities have not banded together and really can't when you stop to think about it. The Blacks hate the Koreans, the Koreans hate the Japanese, the Nicarguans hate the Mexicans ... no they will never get together. If the Hispanics, to lump them all together (and the Latin Americans I know hate being lumped in with the rest of the South Americans, but especially the Mexicans), were consulted, they would want the mention of God because most of them are Catholics.

sfga6970 · 09-14-2005, 22:44

This guy Newdow should be sent to see his "Non-Maker". People like this are the ones who tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and slow down the entire judicial process.

Caldric · 09-15-2005, 00:54

He said he was date raped by his ex and that he was forced to be a father. He started a group "Fathers against forced Fathership" or some such nonsense.

What a freak. He had nothing to do with the girl for like 5 years then wanted to be a father. The SC chucked the case out last time because he did not even have legal custody of his daughter that he was ashamed of.

I am sick of the minority pushing their agenda on the majority through frivolous lawsuits.

SherryGrace · 09-15-2005, 01:07

Quote:

On September 8, 1892 a Boston-based youth magazine "The Youth's Companion" published a 22-word recitation for school children to use during planned activities the following month to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. Under the title "The Pledge to the Flag", the composition was the earliest version of what we now know as the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

The October 12, 1892 Columbus Day celebration of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America was planned for years in advance, and anticipated much as modern Americans look forward to and plan for the advent of a new century. The United States had recovered from most of the effects of its Civil War that began 30 years earlier, and people from around the world were flocking to the "Land of Opportunity". The previous year almost a half million immigrants had entered the United States through the Barge Office in Battery Park, New York and on New Years day of 1892 the new Federal Bureau of Receiving's station at Ellis Island had opened.
Two men interested in both education and planned Columbus Day celebrations around our Nation's 44 states were Francis Bellamy and James Upham. To this day it is still unknown which of the two men actually authored the words that were to become the Pledge of Allegiance. It was published anonymously and not copyrighted. James Upham was an employee of the Boston publishing firm that produced "The Youth's Companion" in which it first appeared. Francis Bellamy was an educator who served as chairman of the National committee of educators and civic leaders who were planning the Columbus Day activities. What we do know for certain is that the words first appeared in the September 8, 1892 issue of "The Youth's Companion", and a month later more than 12 million school children recited the words for the first time in schools across the nation. Our Pledge of Allegiance was born, but like anything new, it took many years to "reach maturity", and underwent several changes along the way. That first Pledge of Allegiance read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,

With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892

After the Columbus Day celebration the Pledge to the Flag became a popular daily routine in America's public schools, but gained little attention elsewhere for almost 25 years. Finally, on Flag Day - June 14, 1923, the Pledge received major attention from adults who had gathered for the first National Flag Conference in Washington, D.C. Here their Conference agenda took note of the wording in the Pledge. There was concern that, with the number of immigrants now living in the United States, there might be some confusion when the words "My Flag" were recited. To correct this the pledge was altered to read:

I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:one
Nation indivisible,

With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1923

The following year the wording was changed again to read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1924

The Pledge of Allegiance continued to be recited daily by children in schools across America, and gained heightened popularity among adults during the patriotic fervor created by World War II. It still was an "unofficial" pledge until June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. In 1945 the Pledge to the Flag received its official title as:

The Pledge of Allegiance

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal. Those words now read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1954

In 1892, 1923, 1924 and 1954 the American people demonstrated enough concern about the actual words in the Pledge to make some necessary changes. Today there may be a tendency among many Americans to recite "by rote" with little thought for the words themselves. Before continuing with our tour, let's examine these 31 words a little more thoroughly.

I Pledge AllegianceI Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty)

to the flagto the emblem that stands for and represents

of the United Statesall 50 states, each of them individual, and individually represented on the flag

of Americayet formed into a UNION of one Nation.

and to the RepublicAnd I als