Pledge of allegiance ruled unconstitutional...again

rogue · Post by **rogue** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:56 am

SAN FRANCISCO - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About damn time, hopefully it will actually be heard by the Supreme Court this time. Last time I checked, church and state are supposed to be seperate. Now if we can just take "in god we trust" off our currency.

nitro237 · Post by **nitro237** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:02 pm

Now if we can just take "in god we trust" off our currency.

Yep, "in God we trust" really devalues the money. Almost makes it not worth putting in your wallet.
The government would be wise to get it out of circulation and spend a little more dollars making new money.
:bull

nitro237 · Post by **nitro237** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:08 pm

you know rogue, I don't really believe you're as retarded as you want people to think. You just say retarded things for the attention. There's one in every crowd

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:36 pm

Who the hell cares. And if you dont pledge allegiance to the United States of America doesen't that make you a

TERRORIST

rogue · Post by **rogue** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:13 pm

Originally posted by nitro237
you know rogue, I don't really believe you're as retarded as you want people to think. You just say retarded things for the attention. There's one in every crowd

Wow, my statements must have cut deep for you to call me a retard not once, but twice, and with an extra post too! Bravo my friend, you almost succeeded in hiding your bitterness and anger. Almost. I wouldn't have it any other way, especially from a delusional neo-con.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:34 pm

What utter BS! This $hit always comes from San Fransisco. I wish our state would be split into two so all the wacko-socialist-hippies would be concentrated in the northern part of the state.

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.

What harm? Just don't participate in the recital. What could be more simple than that instead of denying it to ~99.9% of the people who believe in some form of a God. As for the money, I think that the idiots that demand that "in God we trust" be remove, they should stop using it.

nitro237 · Post by **nitro237** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:01 pm

rogue , you always post things to try to start a flame thread. You are an attention whore.

hame

TheSovereign · Post by **TheSovereign** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:31 pm

u know what i say "**** atheists"
thats right ****em
they arent the majority so ****em
****em good and hard
98 percent of the earth believes in some god
and the us treasury does aswell
if the word god offends you, I DONT CARE, in fact i will now make it a point to offend atheists wherever i go

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:49 pm

again.....rouge is an idiot.

Time to change $, time to change the courts, oh time to change HISTORY!

Freedom OF choice, not freedom from choice.

Greg

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:40 pm

Just so you know I simply gave an idiodic response to it. thats intierly a joke and i forgot to add the rolly eyes at the end!

WOOT!

But... yea if it offends you then go live in a concreat block where nobody can tell you anthing.

Red Dawn · Post by **Red Dawn** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:29 am

I'm an Atheist and although the verse "Under God" is a legacy to a shameful time in America it doesn't bother me at all. I think it's much ado over nothing.

Speck102 · Post by **Speck102** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:16 pm

That is rediculous, most people either don't mind it, or want it in there, so why can't they have the freedom of reciting it? No one is making anyone do anything, but what happened to the freedom of those who believe in God, and wouldn't have the Pledge of Alliegance(sp?) any other way?

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:32 am

An interesting aside: The "Under God" phrase was NOT in the original pledge of allegiance. It was added in 1954. I never knew that.

I lean strongly towards seperation of church and state, but this is stupid. It's a traditional recitation. When I was a kid growning up I never even thought about the words when I said the pledge. It was just one of those stupid things you had to do in school.

There are FAR more important seperation of church and state issues to worry about.