Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[Scrooge McSam]

Here we go again!

[scaeagles]

"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."

So why did Karlton say was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they were overruled? That makes no sense at all.

Now, considering that the SC said Newdow had no legal standing in the earlier case, and this one is structured slightly differently as I understand it, he could have just ruled. but to cite the previous decision of the 9th is...well....stupid.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So why did Karlton say was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they were overruled? That makes no sense at all.

Is the case being thrown out originally on a technicality the same as being overruled? The technicality doesn't exist this time, therefore either does what the Supreme Court originally ruled. I could be mistaken but that's how it reads to me.

[innerSpaceman]

The precedent still exists, but it simply exists for people who have the legal standing to sue on such grounds. Just becuase the dude didn't have standing, doesn't mean that the ruling never existed. It applies to anyone who does have standing.

The Supreme Court had to know it was just side-stepping the issue and that it would come up again. Well, here it is.



Oh, don't expect to hear anything about Roberts's take on it. He won't even reveal his shoe size.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What MbC said. The actual facts of the case that lead to the conclusion of the court the last time remain the same, it's just the legal status of how the case got there that's changed.

[Betty]

Good! Why should I have to declare that God exists in order to pledge allegiance to my country.

[jdramj]

You know I don't know what the big deal is? By simply saying "under God", it doesn't not make you one who believes that there is a God, by any stretch of the imagination.

I realize there is a right to religious freedom at work here, meaning you have the choice to be religious or not. But the core of this is how much of the tax payers money got wasted on these two words "under God" because someoone wants to prove a point. Why not just omitt those words while reciting the pledge for your own personal satisfaction?

You want the words out? Talk to the law makers....don't sue the schools.

What's next? Suing ballparks for playing "God bless America" instead of/or with "Take me out to the Ballgame" during the 7th inning stretch?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Look, I agree that's it's not THAT big of a deal. This father is a nut and taking things too far.

BUT, even though I personally wouldn't go out of my way to make a big deal of it, the fact is, it's in front of the court. And the court has to look it objectively. And as I see it, it's pretty black and white. The pledge existed without the reference to god. During the McCarthy era, in a blatant and outward attempt to instill the fear of God in this country, the Knight of Columbus pushed for the addition. When signing it, Eisenhower even said, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

So if this isn't a case of our government enacting legislation cocnerning religion, I don't know what the hell is.

Again, is it the worst thing in the world? No. But the fact is that the express purpose for that phrase to be in there was to impress relgiousness on the country and I see no other option for the court other than to rule it be removed.

[scaeagles]

Let's say it is removed and some students - maybe a lot, maybe most - decide they want to continue to have it in the pledge and say it anyway. Would/should they be disciplined? After all, they are government schools.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Let's say it is removed and some students - maybe a lot, maybe most - decide they want to continue to have it in the pledge and say it anyway. Would/should they be disciplined? After all, they are government schools.

Absolutely not. As long as it's not disruptive, they are free to say it any way they want. Just as they are free to pray in school of their own volition any way they want (again, as long as it's not disruptive). The issue is that it's coming from the other way, it's the government issuing the religious statement, it's the government passing legislation that says, "The correct way to pledge is by acknowledging God." Personal freedom to acknowledge god=constitutional. Government statements declaring God's jurisdiction over this land=unconstitutional.