Pledge of Allegiance Can Still Be Recited: Federal Court Ruling Can be Ignored Because....

[GulliverSwift]

The lower Federal courts were created by an act of Congress, and anything that was created by Congress cannot tell Congress what it can and can not do. The Supreme Court can, because it was not created by an act of Congress, it was formed by the Constitution.

A creation of Congress, though, cannot tell it what to do. The EPA, the FCC, the FTC, etc., cannot tell Congress what it can't do, Congress created them all. It also created the Federal courts.

Now, about the ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge was created by Congress, including the later addition of the words, "under God." No creation of Congress can tell the body to do otherwise, only the Supreme Court can do that.

So if you're a teacher and you're in that federal court district, KEEP IT UP!!!! Don't stop the pledge.

[syriacus]

Very interesting, and more than a little heartening.

[Arkinsaw]

The court isn't telling Congress that it's adding 'under God' to the pledge is illegal. Its telling the State government of California that reading it in class is illegal.

If teachers wish to continue the Pledge until this is overturned by a competent court (if there are any left) they might try giving the children a copy of the page in the Congressional Record from 1954 where the pledge is codified. As far as I can tell, the court cannot declare that the teachers can't read a historical act of Congress as codified in the Congressional Record. It's history after all.

[unixfox]

The EPA, the FCC, the FTC, etc., cannot tell Congress what it can't do, Congress created them all. It also created the Federal courts.

Although I agree with this, apparently the effing IRS does not. Which is reason #823 to abolish that UNCONSTITUTIONAL wart on the ass of America !!

[Dr. Frank fan]

As far as I can tell, the court cannot declare that the teachers can't read a historical act of Congress as codified in the Congressional Record. It's history after all.

I don't think that would fly. The Bible is also history (of a sort); I don't think the courts would allow students being forced to read from it.

[Arkinsaw]

I don't think that would fly. The Bible is also history (of a sort); I don't think the courts would allow students being forced to read from it.

Study of the Bible as literature is allowed under certain circumstances. But whether or not this would fly is something that is up to the court. Why must we assume it wouldn't fly and bow to an unknown inevitability? If the court doesn't want the Congressional Record recited in classrooms we should make it say so directly.

[Partisan Hack]

The decision has been staid. It now goes to the Supreme court who could take up to 4 years to hear the case. LA Unified will continue to say the pledge.

Nothing here, move along....

[LiteKeeper]

Has anyone found the "right to not be offended" in the Constitution? If someone is offended because of what someone else has said...SO WHAT? Get over it...and move on. Are the left leaning citizens (used advisably) of this land so emotionally unstable, that a couple of words referring to God leaves them emotionally scarred?