Judge: Pa.'s Pledge law violates First Amendment

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | August 20, 2004 | Associated Press Wire

[buzzyboop]

A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out a state law that required schoolchildren to either recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the national anthem daily.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the law violated the free-speech rights of students and the right of private schools to "free expressive association."

The Pennsylvania law, which was passed and signed into law in 2002, allowed schools to opt out of the requirement for religious reasons but not for secular reasons. It also permitted students to decline on the basis of religious conviction or personal belief, but required the district to inform the student's parents.

[Smile-n-Win]

Every morning we all stand, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the general jerk-offs don't say anything, and the rest of the class recites the pledge.

I think the PA law in question didn't allow the jerk-offs to remain silent.

[NJ_gent]

"You can't force kids to take a pledge."

Sure you can, just ask the Soviets.

[JohnnyZ]

Demanding a daily loyalty oath to the government is hostile to conservative principles.

It also permitted students to decline on the basis of religious conviction or personal belief, but required the district to inform the student's parents.

[SedVictaCatoni]

You have an excellent point and I stand corrected. Starting today, I am going to start violating those overbearing laws requiring me to stop at red octagonal signs and red colored lights. Why should I? I am also going to start violating those laws that prohibit me from taking other people's property without their permission because they violate my conservative principles.

The soul of leftist belief is that everything, including people, ultimately belong to the state, and by extension to the government. Coercing children into "pledging allegiance to the republic" forces them to acknowledge that their government has the right to control them. It's not a statement that they agree to abide by the laws of the republic - it's a statement that the republic owns them, rather than the other way around. As such, it is almost by definition anathema to conservative political philosophy.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Well... I guess next some lefty judge will rule the 9/11 hijackers were just expressing their right of dissent!

[Teacher317]

Ironic, isn't it, that some pols want to use legislative force to coerce children to swear loyalty to principles of freedom and liberty. Those who refuse would seem to have a better grasp of the concepts! =^O

(Not that I am opposed to the recitation in schools... only the punishment of those who refuse to follow along.)

[DustyMoment]

Coercing children into "pledging allegiance to the republic" forces them to acknowledge that their government has the right to control them.

Oh, please!! I've been accused of leaps of logic because my original post to you stated that I would quit observing those red octagonal signs, etc. Your reply more meets the leap of logic charge.

Pledging allegiance to the republic forces no one to acknowledge that the government has the right to control them, nor does it force anyone to swear allegiance to a particular government, whether it be the government of GW Bush or Bill Clinton, or Sparky, the 3-legged alien mutt. The formal name of this nation is the Republic of the United States of America. Swearing allegiance to the Republic is swearing allegiance to the nation, NOT the government.

The Founding Fathers were not as big fools as some people might believe. When you take time to sit down and read documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if you have an appreciation for language and philosophy, you will develop a new appreciation for the majesty of their collective ideas and opinions. They specifically wrote the Constitution with the idea that we all have different ideas and opinions and that, with reasoned discourse, we can achieve common goals that benefit the plurality of the population. But, nowhere in those documents, in the pledge, in the Constitution, or in the Declaration of Independence, do the Founding Fathers either require, suggest, imply or demand allegiance to 'a' or 'the' government. They knew better. The pledge is for allegiance to this nation. If you cannot or are unwilling to pledge any allegiance to this nation, why are you here?

Freeloaders, such as the Hollyweird crowd, who make vast sums of money in this country using the freedoms we are all afforded by the Constitution and have no sense of obligation or allegiance to the country are of no value. The Founding Fathers created a form of government that welcomed diversity and differences of opinion, but required change to come from within. If you don't like a policy, law or process, you need to work within the system to change it.

The law requiring the children to recite the Pledge or sing the National Anthem was written by people who were elected by a majority vote to serve the needs of the state of Pennsylvania. The judicial panel that overturned the law was not elected by a majority of the voters and is not specifically charged with representing their interests. This is not representative of a representative form of government, this is judicial anarchy.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Try telling that to the teacher when he asks you the answer to question #11...

To say that you have a right to free speech, doesn't mean you shouldn't bear the consequence (from others) of said speech.

[Modernman]

If you don't like a policy, law or process, you need to work within the system to change it.

That is what happened here. Petioning courts to overturn unconstitutional actions by the other branches of government is an integral part of the American system.

The law requiring the children to recite the Pledge or sing the National Anthem was written by people who were elected by a majority vote to serve the needs of the state of Pennsylvania. The judicial panel that overturned the law was not elected by a majority of the voters and is not specifically charged with representing their interests.

Our system is set up in such a manner that the majority cannot do certain things, no matter how much it wants to. Our Founding Fathers were very careful to set up a system where the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority.

[SedVictaCatoni]

But, nowhere in those documents, in the pledge, in the Constitution, or in the Declaration of Independence, do the Founding Fathers either require, suggest, imply or demand allegiance to 'a' or 'the' government.

I find it disturbing that you apparently believe that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the Founding Fathers. In light of this, I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post. The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), an activist for socialism who hoped to use the Pledge to help bind children to the ideal of a planned society organized around the ideals of the French Revolution rather than around capitalism.

[DustyMoment]

I'll simply acknowledge that suggesting that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge (which I know they didn't) was a misstatement on my part.

You're locked in a belief system that neither I nor anyone else will ever be able to change.

[NJ_gent]

"It also permitted students to decline on the basis of religious conviction or personal belief, but required the district to inform the student's parents."

Secular reasons were specifically excluded from the list of valid reasons to refuse. This law ignored West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette and Miranda v Arizona; both of which clearly invalidate it. The court made the right decision, and the appeals court affirmed the right decision. A loyalty oath coerced holds no value anyway.

[airborne]

What happens to me if I refuse, in court, to swear on a bible to tell the truth?

[airborne]

"-Our Founding Fathers were very careful to set up a system where the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority.-"

The minority (3 people) have taken away the rights of the majority (elected representatives of the people).

[Christian Muniz]

I think you can ask to take the Bible out of the oath process and exclude the reference to God, and it'll still be legally binding.

One would hope there wouldn't be a big objection to acknowledging God here and there, but requiring it is not a very conservative ideal.

[airborne]

It just seems to me that Christianity is the whipping boy of the liberal left, while Islam is getting every court ruling in its' favor lately. IMHO, that is religious persecution.

BTW, no matter what a judge rules, they can't prevent me from praying any time, any where. I don't need permission, just faith.

[Tribune7]

ping

[SedVictaCatoni]

What happens to me if I refuse, in court, to swear on a bible to tell the truth?

Nothing at all. They'll just swear you in without it. I'm not even sure that Bibles are still used in all that many jurisdictions.

If you simply meant "what happens if I refuse in court to swear to tell the truth", then what happens is that you're not permitted to testify. An oath or affirmation to tell the truth is not however a pledge of loyalty to anyone; it's a consent to be punished if you are later found untruthful.

[jimtorr]

PA might appeal it to the US Supreme Court.

This was a ruling by a 3 judge panel of the 3rd Circuit. The next step is an appeal for a ruling by the entire 3rd Ciruit Court.

[E Rocc]

I don't know why state legislators pass laws that they know are unconstitutional.

So they can grandstand for the mob and then blame the judges for being "out of touch". That's why the Framers codified basic rights in the Constitution and made the amendment process so cumbersome.

This one sounds borderline though. The kids get to opt out. I don't have a problem with the schools informing their parents if they do.

-Eric