Posted on 09/14/2005 11:31:13 AM PDT by zencat
SAN FRANCISCO - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Crap. That Newdow chap is at it again?
Already posted, however this is a new Associated Press article covering the decision.
Ridiculous ruling, but regardless, I hope this issue doesn't just give the Republican politicians something to talk about and look conservative about while the real issues- runaway illegal immigration and federal spending- are swept under the rug.
Usually I'd support his right to be an absolute a'hole if he so chooses, although I have to think about it when it affects something like this.
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Yes, above all we must not expose our children to GOD! It could have serious psychological consequences!
Why do these judges think THEY are God?
Couldn't the kids just stand there and keep their mouths shut if they feel that way? Or just be silent during the "under God" thing? They are pledging their allegience to the flag and the nation. Do they got a problem with that?
These friggin' judges are unbelievable in their arrogance.
The demand that athiesm conflicts with any expression of theism and therefore, all acknowledgements of theism must be expunged, would seem to be making the Athiestic religion the official one.
The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth...commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
--Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Bd of Education of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
This declaration by the Supreme Court was the first time it informed everyone that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was applicable to the states. Before that time, state-religion issues were not the province of the US Constitution or the federal courts. But was the Supreme Court right? Did the 14th Amendment make the Establishment Clause applicable to the states?
Go back to 1875 (7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified)...President Grant asks Congressman James Blaine to introduce a proposed amendment that will provide in part:
No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The Blaine Amendment (which would have been the 16th Amendment to the US Constution passes the House but fails in the Senate. Senator Frelinghuysen of NJ, in introducing the amendment in the Senate states:
The [Blaine Amendment] very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. Thus the [Blaine Amendment] prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office.
Senator Eaton of Connecticut, in objecting to the Blaine Amendment states, on the Senate floor:
I am opposed to any State prohibiting the free exercise of any religion; and I do not require the Senate or the Congress of the United States to assist me in taking care of the State of Connecticut in that regard.
Senator Whyte agreed:
The first amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also.
One, if they cared to, could go back and review the Congressional record during the debates over the Blaine Amendment...it seems that none of the Congressmen who ratified the 14th Amendment knew that they thereby incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states...the Everson case must be another fine example of Constitutional fiction...I mean..."interpretation"
You owe me a keyboard! ;-)
This decision sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
The broader question is now upon us, as we all knew it would. Sooner or later the Ninth Circus would again throw another challenge in the faces of the Supremes. Hope the SC has more guts this time around.
Leni
Newt Gingrich touched on this subject a while back. IIRC he said there was a bill floating around that would take the Pledge out of the Court's jurisdiction.
If that were passed an the courts overturned that , he thought it was time to remove their salaries (again this is from memory but I believe he specifically mentioned two justices of the 9th Circus).
Now, now..let's not be logical..../sarc
I hope Newdow outlives me. Because I want to see his reaction when at judgement he finds out there really is a God.
Remember, there are no atheists in hell. They all KNOW God is real.
Let's face facts! Canada, the USofA and Mexico are one nation now. "Travelers" is the legal description given to people that migrate between these three nations (New Mexico Land case). USofA federal spending now covers all three nations in one form or the other. The USofA is collecting taxes, fees, etc., from all three nations.
There are some beautiful places to live in Mexico and Canada, and the land is very cheap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.