vision2020
Re: Fed. Judge Declares "Pledge of Allegiance" Unconstitutional
Dear John and Visionaries,
Thank you, John, for putting the link in your posting so that we could read
the opinion right away.
Initial press reports suggested that the entire pledge of allegiance was
unconstitutional (NOT!). It was the addition of "under God" by Congress in
1954. This reminds me why we should go to the source and review and decide
for ourselves.
It's interesting that this is actually a rather narrow opinion, using
established Supreme Court jurisprudence on church/state separation. The
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is always a contentious area
where good people can have a rousingly good argument about where that line
should be drawn. (currency, okay? Schools, no? Prayer in the Senate and the
House [they need it]? whose prayer? Vouchers okay (yes, says a 5-4 majority
on the Supreme Court)? etc., etc.)
I would suggest that the core of the opinion appears on pages 9122-1927 of
the opinion (18-23 on my PDF version). I was interested to see that the real
issue was the 1954 amendment that added "under God" and the rationale given
at the time by President Eisenhower and members of Congress for the
addition.
Being a little tyke who had just learned the other version, the new words
were a real speed bump. I still have to think deliberately about the pledge
when I say it or lead it because those little tyke memories got hard wired.
I suppose that's actually a really good thing because when I say
"indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" you can bet the family
fortune that I REALLY mean it... justice for ALL!
Take a look and see where you come out.
All the best,
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Harrell" <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>
To: "vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: Fed. Judge Declares "Pledge of Allegiance" Unconstitutional
> A federal appeals court, The 9th U.S. Circuit Court, ruled today that
> the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion
> and cannot be recited in schools.
>
> In case someone hasn't heard about this yet, I thought I would share this
> with everyone here at Vision2020.
>
> Filed June 26, 2002
>
> The actual opinion is here, and is in .pdf format:
>
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007F
EE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
>
> Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Newdow argues that the
> addition of these words by a 1954 federal statute to the previ-ous
> version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made no reference
> to God) and the daily recitation in the classroom of the
> Pledge of Allegiance, with the added words included, by his
> daughter's public school teacher are violations of the Establishment
> Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
> Constitution.
>
> Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public elementary
> school in the Elk Grove Unified School District
> ("EGUSD") in California. In accordance with state law and a
> school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day
> by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of
> Allegiance ("the Pledge").
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
Back to TOC