The Unconstitutional Pledge: Redux
A federal judge in San Francisco today has ruled that it is unconstitutional to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. The ruling flies in the face of the recent Newdow v Common Sense ruling in 2003 that says there is nothing wrong with having school kids declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education and supplies their freedom. There is also nothing illegal about people such as Newdow lobbying their federal legislators to change the law, but that takes too much time. The court that ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional was also the same court that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in the Neadow case.
updates as I get them
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.
It’s unclear why Judge Karlton believes he’s bound by a appealate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court as wrong. Newdow has brought the case that he lost again to the courts, this time representing some atheist families and their children. While Karlton has narrowed the case to recitation of the Pledge instead of the constitutionality of the pledge itself, he made it clear that “There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this country”.
The Supreme Court case in 2003 focused solely on Newdow’s ability to sue on behalf of a child he does not see and does not have custody of. This case remedies the problem by Newdow fishing out a few families to represent instead and present the same arguments laying the way for the Supreme Court to actually decide the issue this time.
=============
Judge Karlton can be contacted at:
Karlton, Lawrence K.
Hinkle, Tim, Secretary, 916-930-4130, Fax: 916-491-3905
Rivas, Ana, CRD, 916-930-4133, Fax: 916-491-3934
Others talking about this:
OTB, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin, ABP, others…
I believe the spelling is Newdow. CNN story link:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
RESPONSE: Fixed
Comment by The MaryHunter | September 14, 2005
Did I miss something? Or is it mandatory for schoolchildren to recite the pledge? The Left always speaks of choice, why not simply let atheists choose not to say that portion of the pledge?
RESPONSE:
Having to hear it is unconstitutional too.
Comment by reverse_vampyr | September 14, 2005
FYI: The Supreme Court threw out the previous case based on its reasoning that since Newdow did not have custody of his daughter, he did not have “standing” to sue on her behalf. This time, Newdow (a lawyer) represented three sets of parents who sued on behalf of their own children. They have standing to sue. THAT’s the difference between the cases, and should withstand any similar challenge by the Supreme Court. It was stated clearly in the article. (:>
Comment by Donald Cormac | September 14, 2005
While I may think it’s a petty issue, and we got bigger fish to fry (Katrina, Iraq, economy), the fact of the matter is that, although judges labeled this a patriotic exercise, it’s still a patriotic exercise that enshrines, under official law, that the country places itself “under God”, an assertion that flies in the face of the Founders’ admonition to keep church and state seperate.
I was brought up half-Catholic, half-Baptist. I grew to question much of the man-made hierarchies and taboos, although I still am highly spiritual, think Christ is an excellent model to emulate, and believe in a higher power that has created us. I am certainly not atheistic, but I fear the forces in this country that seek to force everyone to adopt their interpretation of religion on others. The best way for a secular democracy to keep its freedom for all is to relegate the issue of personal religion to the personal realm, rather than the public/governmental realm. Should it be illegal to recite the Pledge as it stands today in schools? No. Teachers, staff, and students that wish to recite it should be able to do it on their own time, without coercion, without “collective” cues and organization, etc. However, the whole exercise in meaningless recitation of words most of the reciters don’t even understand or practice is not only pathetic, it’s cementing a political perspective that is informed by the belief in a God. Not that this is horrible (again, I believe in a Creator), but it is unfair to my fellow Americans, who should be able to enjoy the same rights I have to affirm my belief in a Creator, by affirming that they don’t believe there is a Creator. What makes this country free is the freedom to choose one way or another.
Ultimately, it’s a petty issue, but, on the purely legal grounds, I think the athiests have it. Including the “Under God” statement was passed by national legislation, making it an official statement from government promoting religion, and that’s a violation of seperation of church and state, as is the statements on our money, and any other recitation of government-approved belief in religion or non-belief in religion. I’d be as opposed to forced atheism as I’m opposed to forced religiosity.
Comment by Jamie Foxer | September 14, 2005
Federal judge declares Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional today by a federal
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator | September 14, 2005
Pledge Ruled “Unconstitutional”
Yesterday, a federal judge in California ruled that it’s unconstitutional to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. All this started a couple years ago when Michael Newdow started throwing a fit that his daughter had to hear the wor…
Trackback by T. Longren | September 15, 2005
It’s unclear why Judge Karlton believes he’s bound by a appealate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court as wrong.
Perhaps you need to get your senses checked. As another has pointed out, the Supreme Court did not rule that Newdow was wrong, it ruled that he had no standing to bring the case. If you read the majority Supreme Court brief, it actually says “Michael Newdow is right, but if we say as much just now, Bambenek and millions of other right-wing Christian reactionaries will go completely apeshit, so we’re taking an easy out for now, and when he argues in front of us next time and we agree with him again, you people will have had a chance to think this through.”
If you read … read .. yes? Reading … the testimony that Newdow gave to the court, he answered the “why don’t you do this through the legislature” question as well … the legislature hates Athiests, and isn’t going to do squat to correct this silly problem, so he is taking it through the courts.
Cheers,
-danny
RESPONSE:
I’ve read the ruling… you’ll find no such thing saying the pledge is unconstitutional, they dwell on his standing but tangently say…
“Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdow’s right to instruct his daughter in his religious views.”
The court certainly said nothing about people going apeshit.
But it’s nice to see you’re little different than the dungslinger I remember.
Comment by Danny Howard | September 16, 2005