Supreme Court Weighs 'Under God' Reference in Pledge [Scalia Recuses Self]

On this issue, while Scalia will recuse himself on the First Amendment issue, he could decide whether Newdow actually had standing to bring his action in the first place. If Supremes determine that Newdow lacks standing, the court could overturn the 9th Circuit without even reaching the First Amendment issue.

So I was standing on the steps of the USSC this morning, and a tourist asks me what building it was! Oy vey, I thought he was joking. He was in his mid-50's and looked American, and he had no foreign accent. Perhaps it was a clueless Canadian, but come on... the imagery is kind of obvious.

Maybe he didn't see the giant letters that read "Equal Justice Under Law" because truth has fallen in the streets. Even the pics on the digital camera, which are pretty clear, didn't pick up those words. It's not just me, I ran into the same problem on a Google image search.

You know what they say... cameras don't lie.

One would perhaps think that saying a pledge - or saying God in a pledge - really doesn't seem to have any effect on the prosperity and success of this nation.

Well then, how about we all just leave the pledge alone and quit worrying about it? The pledge is just fine as it is.

The SCOTUS will only consider the following questions...

02-1624 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH. DIST. V. NEWDOW, MICHAEL A., ET AL. The motion of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Rutherford Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following Questions: 1. Whether respondent has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case on behalf of the United States. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions and this petition.

No. 02-1574 Status: PENDING
Vide 02-1624, 03-7
Title: United States, Petitioner
v.
Michael A. Newdow, et al.

Docketed: April 30, 2003
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (00-16423)
Decision Date: February 28, 2003

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 30 2003 Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 27, 2003)
Apr 30 2003 Appendix of United States filed.
May 21 2003 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 27, 2003.
May 22 2003 Brief amicus curiae of United States Senate filed. VIDED.
May 22 2003 Brief amici curiae of Sam Brownback, et al. filed.
May 22 2003 Letter from counsel for amici Brownback, et al. containing names of all amici represented.
May 30 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of US House of Representatives filed. VIDED.
May 30 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Wallbuilders, Inc. filed.
May 30 2003 Brief amicus curiae of American Legion filed. VIDED.
Jun 6 2003 Waiver of right of respondents Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. to respond filed.
Jun 10 2003 Brief amici curiae of Idaho, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jun 17 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Texas Assn. of School Boards Legal Assistance Fund, et al. filed. VIDED
Jun 18 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Gray Davis, Governor of CA filed. VIDED
Jun 24 2003 Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
Jun 26 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Americans United for Church and State filed.
Jun 26 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Knights of Columbus filed.
Jun 27 2003 Brief of respondent Michael A. Newdow in opposition filed. VIDED.
Jun 27 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Dirk Kempthorne, et al. filed.VIDED
Jun 27 2003 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Sandra L. Banning. VIDED.
Jun 30 2003 Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jul 7 2003 Opposition of Michael Newdow to motion of Sandra Banning for leave to file brief amicus curiae file. VIDED.
Jul 14 2003 Reply of petitioner United States filed.
Sep 10 2003 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2003.
Sep 17 2003 Letter of respondent Michael A. Newdow. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2003 Letter of Solicitor General responding to letter of respondent. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2003 Letter of counsel for Sandra L. Banning received. (Distributed)
Sep 25 2003 Letter from counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State received. (Distributed)
Oct 6 2003 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2003.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 5614
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: United States

Attorneys for Respondent:
Michael A. Newdow P. O. Box 233345 (916) 427-6669
Sacramento, CA 95823

Party name: Michael A. Newdow

Terence John Cassidy Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant (916) 929-1481
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Party name: Elk Grove Unified School District, et al.

Theodore Garelis Office of the AG, 1300 I Street, P.O. Box 944255 (916) 445-0767
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Party name: California

Other:
Patricia Mack Bryan Office of Senate Legal Counsel (202) 224-4435
642 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Party name: United States Senate

Jay Alan Sekulow American Center for Law & Justice (202) 546-8890
201 Maryland Ave., N.E.
Washington, DC 20002-5703
Party name: Sam Brownback, et al.

Geraldine R. Gennet General Counsel (202) 225-9700
US House of Representatives
219 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Party name: Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of US House of Representatives

Lawrence C. Wasden Office of the Attorney General 700 W. Jefferson St. (208) 334-2400
Boise, ID 83720-0010
Party name: Idaho, et al.

Barry C. Hodge National Legal Foundation (757) 463-6133
2224 Virginia Beach Blvd.
Suite 204
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
Party name: Wallbuilders, Inc.

Eric L. Hirschhorn Winston & Strawn, LLP (202) 371-5700
1400 L Street. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Party name: American Legion

Lisa A. Brown 711 Louisiana, Suite 2900 (713) 223-2900
Houston, TX 77002-2781
Party name: Texas Assn. of School Boards Legal Assistance Fund, et al.

David H. Remes Covington & Burling (202) 662-5212
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
Party name: Americans United for Church and State

Kevin J. Hasson Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (202) 955-0095
1350 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Party name: Knights of Columbus

Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis (202) 879-5000
655 Fifteenth Street. N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Party name: Sandra L. Banning

Gregory S. Baylor Center for Law & Religious Freedom (703) 642-1070
Christian Legal Society
4208 Evergreen Lane, suite 222
Annandale, VA 22003
Party name: Christian Legal Society, et al.

L. Michael Bogert Counsel to Governor (208) 334-2100
State Capitol
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, DC 83720
Party name: Dirk Kempthorne, et al.

No. 03-7 Status: PENDING
Vide 02-1624, 02-1574
Title: Michael A. Newdow, Petitioner
v.
United States Congress, et al.

Docketed: June 30, 2003
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (00-16423)
Decision Date: February 28, 2003

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 13 2003 Application (02A976) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 29, 2003 to June 26, 2003, submitted to Justice Stevens.
May 20 2003 Application (02A976) granted by Justice Stevens extending the time to file until June 26, 2003.
Jun 26 2003 Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 30, 2003)
Jul 25 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. filed.
Jul 29 2003 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 29, 2003, for all respondents.
Jul 30 2003 Brief amicus curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed.
Jul 30 2003 Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
Aug 4 2003 Brief of respondents United States Congress, et al. in opposition filed.
Aug 28 2003 Brief of respondents School District Respondents in opposition filed.
Sep 9 2003 Suggestion for recusal received from petitioner.
Sep 10 2003 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2003.
Sep 17 2003 Letter from petitioner received.
Sep 22 2003 Letter of Solicitor General in response to letter of petitioner received. (Distributed)
Sep 22 2003 Letter of counsel for Sandra L. Banning received. (Distributed)
Sep 25 2003 Letter from counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans for Separation of Church and State received. (Distributed)
Sep 26 2003 Letter from petitioner received. (Distributed)
Oct 2 2003 Letter of October 2, 2003, from petitioner received. (Distributed)
Oct 6 2003 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2003.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Michael A. Newdow P. O. Box 233345 (916) 427-6669
Sacramento, CA 95823
Party name: Michael A. Newdow

Attorneys for Respondent:
Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 5614
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Party name: United States Congress, et al.

Terence John Cassidy Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant (916) 929-1481
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Theodore Garelis Office of the AG, 1300 I Street, P.O. Box 944255 (916) 445-0767
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Party name: California

Other:
Robert Reitano Tiernan 3120 S. Xenia Street 33036712490
Denver, CO 80231
Party name: Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

David H. Remes Covington & Burling (202) 662-5212
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
Party name: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis (202) 879-5000
655 Fifteenth Street. N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Party name: Sandra L. Banning

not good.

Does anyone have the history of the pledge?

"God save the United States and this Honorable Court”

Should be very interesting!

NOTE that there are 3 Separate cases pending regarding this matter.. for those who want to follow this closely...

No. 03-7 Status: PENDING Vide 02-1624, 02-1574 Title: Michael A. Newdow, Petitioner v. United States Congress, et al. Docketed: June 30, 2003 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Nos.: (00-16423) Decision Date: February 28, 2003

No. 02-1574 Status: PENDING Vide 02-1624, 03-7 Title: United States, Petitioner v. Michael A. Newdow, et al. Docketed: April 30, 2003 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Nos.: (00-16423) Decision Date: February 28, 2003

No. 02-1624 Status: PENDING Vide 02-1574, 03-7 Title: Elk Grove Unified School District and David W. Gordon, Petitioners v. Michael A. Newdow Docketed: May 9, 2003 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Nos.: (00-16423) Decision Date: February 26, 2002 Rehearing Denied: February 28, 2003

And I don't think the four votes needed to grant cert would have been found unless people were pretty sure there's going to be a reversal.

Thanks for the heads up!

Just copied this verbatim, no idea of the validity.

History Series For Schools

The Pledge of Allegiance

Thirty-one words which affirm the values and freedom that the American flag represents are recited while facing the flag as a pledge of Americans’ loyalty to their country. The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the 400th anniversary, in 1892, of the discovery of America. A national committee of educators and civic leaders planned a public-school celebration of Columbus Day to center around the flag. Included with the script for ceremonies that would culminate in raising of the flag was the pledge. So it was in October 1892 Columbus Day programs that school children across the country first recited the Pledge of Allegiance this way:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands. One Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Controversy continues over whether the author was the chairman of the committee, Francis Bellamy — who worked on a magazine for young people that published the pledge — or James Upham, who worked for the publishing firm that produced the magazine. The pledge was published anonymously in the magazine and was not copyrighted.

According to some accounts of Bellamy as author, he decided to write a pledge of allegiance, rather than a salute, because it was a stronger expression of loyalty — something particularly significant even 27 years after the Civil War ended. "One Nation indivisible" referred to the outcome of the Civil War, and "Liberty and Justice for all" expressed the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.

The words "my flag" were replaced by "the flag of the United States" in 1923 because some foreign-born people might have in mind the flag of the country of their birth, instead of the U.S. flag. A year later, "of America" was added after "United States." No form of the pledge received official recognition by Congress until June 22, 1942, when it was formally included in the U.S. Flag Code. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954, when Congress passed a law which added the words "under God" after "one nation."

Originally, the pledge was said with the right hand in the so-called "Bellamy Salute," with the hand resting first outward from the chest, then the arm extending out from the body. Once Hitler came to power in Europe, some Americans were concerned that this position of the arm and hand resembled the salute rendered by the Nazi military. In 1942 Congress established the current practice of rendering the pledge with the right hand placed flat over the heart.

Section 7 of the Federal Flag Code states that when not in military uniform, men should remove any headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, thereby resting the hand over the heart. People in military uniform should remain silent, face the flag and render the military salute.The Flag Code specifies that any future changes to the pledge would have to be with the consent of the President.

The Pledge of Allegiance now reads:

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.

Provided by:

The SouthWest Washington Veterans Memorial Museum

P.O. Box 872858

Vancouver, WA 98687

E-mail: swwvmm@attbi.com

Web address: swwveteransmemorialmuseum.com

Phone: (360) 892-6195

was meant for longtermmemmory

And standing was by far the weakest part of the Ninth Circus's opinions. That would be an easy way to get some of the leftists on the court to vote to reverse.

I see cert was granted on the standing issue.

So? Justice Ginsburg has spoken favorably of using foreign law and Donald Duck comic books to decide cases. I demand she recuse herself for lack of partiality.

Does Christianity really need government endorsement in order to survive?

Actually, this nation really needs to acknowledge God in order to survive. And the government has no business forbidding it. Back in 1954 it was an excellent idea to compliment the pledge. We even had a school prayer back then. Where is it now? Religion is banned everywhere the government can reach, and the government is expanding. Soon there will be no place left for Christians. The intent of the constitution is the exact opposite. Read the first amendment out laud, several times, then come back to tell me where it forbids acknowledgement of God.

Can you imagine if Scalia didn't recuse himself from this case and it was then decided 5-4 to overturn the 9th Circuit Court? Can't you just hear the liberals and leftists dredging up Bush v. Gore 2000? What if Democrats and their cohorts in crime, the media, decided that Scalia was the one whose vote ultimately decided it and then brought his earlier comments into question and smeared him to high (can I still say this?) heaven?

I think it actually may be a good thing that the SCOTUS has to decide this with only 8 justices. It will be highly apparent which ones are willing to disregard the Constitution and which ones choose to uphold it. Perhaps this will inspire some wimpy Republican Senators to require an actual filibuster on current nominees for lower court positions.

I, personally, will continue to have faith in my God regardless of what man tries to do. They can't take that away from me by removing His name from our nation's Pledge of Allegiance.

One Nation under God....