Posted on 09/14/2005 12:03:16 PM PDT by sourcery
WASHINGTON, June 14. - (INS)
The U. S. supreme court today upheld the constitutional right of children in public schools to refuse to salute the American flag.
Reversing its 1940 judgment, the court held, 6 to 3, that it is unconstitutional and a violation of the bill of rights for public schools to expel pupils who renounce allegiance to the symbolic banner of the United States.
"Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas," the court stated. "The use of an emblem or flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a short cut from mind to mind."
"To sustain the compulsory flag salute," the court added, "we are required to say that a bill of rights, which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind."
W. Va. Education Board Reversed
The supreme court reversal supported an injunction issued by a three-judge federal court against the West Virginia state board of education which had issued an order for flag salute exercises in public schools.
Justice Jackson delivered the court's majority opinion from which Justices Robert, Frankfurter and Reed dissented.
The first decision upholding the compulsory salute of allegiance to the flag was handed down by the court on June 3, 1940, in a case involving the Minserville, Pa., school district. The decision was 8 to 1 with Chief Justice Stone the only dissenting vote.
Of the seven justices who participated in both the earlier and today's decision, three - Justices Black, Douglas and Murphy - some months later announced that their opinion sustaining the constitutionality of the flag salute was wrong.
Jehovah's Witnesses Involved
The West Virginia case which today dramatically reversed the 1940 ruling, originated when three members of Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious sect, claimed that the state law compelling their children to salute the American flag violated their religious principles.
The court today declared that the flag is a symbol of "adherence to government as presently organized," requiring the individual to convey by sign or words his acceptance of the political ideas the flag conveys.
"Objection to this form of communication, when coerced, is an old one, well known to the framers of the bill of rights," the court said.
"Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end, thought essential to their time and country, have been waged by good as well as by evil men."
As government pressure toward unity becomes greater, the supreme court declared, "strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be."
"Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon," the court held in pointing to historic instances of efforts to compel people to adhere to religious or political beliefs.
"It seems trite but necessary to say that the first amendment to our constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
3 Justices Dissent
"There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature and origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the bill of rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
Leading the three justices who dissented from the court decision against the compulsory flag salute was Justice Felix Frankfurter who wrote the opinion in the 1940 decision.
Frankfurter, standing pat on his original opinion, wrote:
"One who belongs to the most villified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensitive to the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the court's opinion.
"But as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor Agnostic. We owe equal attachment to the constitution and are equally bound by our judicial obligations whether we derive our citizenship from the earliest or the latest immigrants to these shore."
Contending that "it is self-delusive to believe that the liberal spirit can be promoted by judicial invalidation of illiberal legislation," Justice Frankfurter stated:
"Most unwillingly therefore I must differ from my brethren with regard to legislation like this. I cannot bring my mind to believe that the liberty clause secured by due process gives this court authority to deny to the state of West Virginia the attainment of that which we all recognize as a legitimate end, namely the promotion of good citizenship by employment of the means here chosen."
Now write 100 times on the blackboard: stare decisis.
SCROTUMS="Supreme Court, Rulers Of The United Metrosexual States"
"There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature and origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the bill of rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
------
And the libs of the bench, ignore this FACT OF AMERICAN HISTORY, to achieve their own Marist agenda of the government stating a created right over what the people can and cannot say, display or respect.
Public schools will continue to be state-sponsored indoctrination centers even if this ruling "sticks". One should check into the origin of the pledge, which was formulated by a socialist, state-worshipping modernist clergyman.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
The "one nation, under God" was only added during the Cold War, and has effectively become a dead letter given the generally anti-theistic, or at least a-theistic curriculum.
On the whole, it's just as well to chuck it, I think, but it would be better to eliminated it by legislative act than by a fiat of the judicial branch.
Just watching to see how many folks fail to notice that this decision was made in 1943...long before the words "under God" were even added to the Pledge. Back then, it was said without those words. Indeed, it was said without those words by the heros of WWII.
That version of the Pledge seemed to work just fine in demonstrating the patriotism of the greatest generation.
The Jehovah's Witnesses hold that all oaths are improper, and they can point to biblical references to demonstrate their point. They won their case, as they should have done.
But... such a person must still pay taxes for the right to live here. Conversely, America owes them no recipricol allegience and therefore no benefits such as medicare, social security etc.
That makes sense to me as you would soon find these anti-American A$$ holes and their destructive judicial cohorts screaming for the right to pledge.
I would hope on this thread, Californians have more class than to wish for disaster, death and destruction of West Virgina because of some judicial ruling.
The thread I was on prior to this, brought out the insane.
bttt
Let those Jehova's witnesses go to another country and try that,hopefully they would be arrested!If one does not have an allegance to this country they should not be allowed to live here.
"Let those Jehova's witnesses go to another country and try that,hopefully they would be arrested!If one does not have an allegance to this country they should not be allowed to live here."
I see. So this nation is only for those who share your particular religious beliefs? I don't think so.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have a very strong belief, backed up by Scripture, that Christians should never swear any kind of oath. The Pledge is an oath, you see, and they refuse to take it, and all other oaths. That is their religious belief.
You may remember the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. It says that every US Citizen may practice their religion. So, when a conflict occurs, the Witnesses simply refuse to break their religious rules.
That does not mean that they do not have allegiance to their country. It merely means that their religion prohibits oath-taking.
If you like, I'll give you the chapter and verse from the New Testament that they use to support their doctrine.
JAMES 5
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other OATH: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
That's their justification for the refusal. As for patriotism, I give you the example of my uncle, who is still carrying shrapnel in his leg from WWII. Don't assume that an pledge, alone, means loyalty. Loyalty and patriotism are in the heart, not in words recited from memory.
Baloney. What a great excuse for being an anarchist. The pledge is not a replacement for ideological belief but an oath to uphold our laws for the better. They can't show a sign of respect for our profound privelges in this country. But Mr. Jehovah reaps the benefits of the secular governments responsibility toward he as an individual.
I hate whiners!
Jehovah can try to exercise his belief in Cuba.
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.