God is Not in the Constitution (Barf)

We receive our rights from God. —George W. Bush, denouncing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes "one nation under God," CNN, June 27

This decision is nuts, just nuts. —Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle, CNN, June 26

If this decision is not overturned, we will amend the Constitution. —Democratic senator Joseph Lieberman, Fox News, June 26

In 1943, during our war against Hitler, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision concerning the Pledge of Allegiance that created fierce controversy around the country—just like last week's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

The West Virginia Board of Education had expelled children of Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to salute the flag and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. These deviants were to be sent to reformatories for criminally minded juveniles, and their parents were threatened with prosecutions for causing juvenile delinquency.

The majority of the Court, in a decision written by Robert Jackson—later chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials—defined the very essence of Americanism as they rebuked the West Virginia Board of Education and sent those kids back to school:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." (Emphasis added.)

Since then, there has been a long line of federal court decisions affirming the right of students to refuse to stand for the pledge or salute the flag—for a wide spectrum of reasons of conscience.

As I described in Living the Bill of Rights (University of California Press, paper), a number of principals and school boards have nonetheless punished students for following the 1943 Supreme Court decision, and these "educators" have been overruled by the courts.

Now we have nearly the entire House and Senate, along with an array of fashionable law professors and such dubiously anointed "legal analysts" as Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker and CNN, scorning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the phrase "one nation under God" puts the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of the separation of church and state.

First, contrary to such instant experts as Connie Chung of CNN, the pledge has not been banned across the nation. The decision affects only the nine states within the Ninth Circuit's purview, if it is not overruled. Second, even within those nine states, a public school student can still recite the pledge, omitting God. Or he or she can recite the pledge, including God—but not as part of an officially mandated public school exercise.

What Judge Alfred Goodwin, a Nixon appointee, did in his Ninth Circuit decision was to follow the rule set by Justice Robert Jackson in 1943:

The fact that "boards of education are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount principles of our government as mere platitudes." (Emphasis added.)

In his decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, Judge Goodwin—like Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette—was affirming the fundamental constitutional command that the government cannot endorse any particular religion or all religions. Otherwise, like China, we would have certain preferred religious beliefs especially protected by the state.

From Judge Goodwin's decision about why including "one nation under God" is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment:

"Particularly within the confined environment of the classroom, the policy is highly likely to convey an impermissible message of [government] endorsement to some, and disapproval to others, of their beliefs regarding the existence of a monotheistic God."

As he pointed out, the phrase "one nation under God" was added to the pledge by Congress in 1954 to advance religion for the sole purpose of differentiating the United States from atheist Communist nations. And, Judge Goodwin emphasized, "such a purpose" is forbidden by the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from advancing religion "at the expense of atheism."

Goodwin also pointed to the "age and impressionability" of the children at the Morse School in Elk Grove, California, the site of the lawsuit. But on Friday morning, there on television were the elementary school students of that very school, with their hands on their hearts, reciting the pledge, including "one nation under God"—and to hell with the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

"Impressionable," however, is not the word for the members of the House and Senate who thronged to excoriate the Ninth Circuit. And on the Capitol steps, in a proud bipartisan display of ignorance of the Constitution's separation of church and state, the House members, hands on hearts, recited the pledge and broke into a righteous "God Bless America."

The cause of all this belligerently conformist patriotism is Dr. Michael Newdow, an atheist and emergency room doctor who also has a law degree and acted as his own lawyer. He sued to preserve the constitutional rights of his eight-year-old daughter, a second-grade student in the Elk Grove Unified School District.

For exercising his constitutional right to confront his government in court, Dr. Newdow says, he is receiving "personal and scary" threats: "I could be dead tomorrow. . . . A lot of God-loving people think that killing other people who don't agree with them is OK."

Dr. Newdow may not receive a warm, protective response from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who insists that "this decision is directly contrary to two centuries of American tradition."

An even longer American tradition is that there is no mention of God in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, heralded by opponents of the Ninth Circuit decision for its references to God, does not have the force of law. And the Constitution says plainly, "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States." We all have the right to freedom of belief, or nonbelief, in God.

"Consider: A single woman with no children has part of her paycheck taken away by the federal government. That government then uses some of the property they took from her to hire a Vice Grand Poohbah of the Department of Education, to fund worthless federal programs with vaguely catchy names like "Head Start", to buy ketchup to give to schoolchildren for lunch, and of course to give lotsa money with mega-strings attached to various State education departments, etc. Remember, she has no children. Why was her property taken away by the federal government? For "public use", of course - education of (in this case other peoples') children."

You are guaranteed representation in the government that taxes you and allocates those taxes. You are not (and cannot be) guaranteed that the programs those taxes are spent for are efficacious. The Founding Fathers envisioned that the public would take care of that themselves through the electoral process. Of course, it will help immensely if the populace is able to read and write, and to think logically, and is able to tell the difference between facts and empty rhetoric. This ability is provided through education. Thus, it is a general good that the public be educated, much as it is a general good that roads be built and maintained, that harbors be dredged, etc. On this basis, governments have established and funded public education. Whether or not it is being run correctly is a different matter, but the public can deal with that by putting elected officials in place (or even running for office themselves) that will make the requisite changes.

Thus, the fact that the woman in your example is childless is immaterial. Education taxes are not tuition payments. If this example held, none of us should pay taxes to support any services we do not use, and all government functions would be funded out of excise taxes and user fees. It was tried before, and it didn't work.

But, in fact, we all pay taxes to support services that don't benefit us directly, but benefit us indirectly. For example: public health. We pay taxes that in part are used to immunize children of families too poor to afford to pay for it themselves. So, I'm paying for some kid that's not my own to get immunized. Why? How does this benefit me? Outside of the spiritual benefits, of course, which may well be the most important.

Because if we have reservoirs of non-immunized children in our cities, we could have outbreaks of communicable diseases that could cause said disease to spread throughout a broad region. This would lead to civil unrest, increases in crime and the money necessary to suppress it, etc. Also, the diseases could directly affect the affluent as well as the poor. Even though the affluent may be immunized, a large pool of infected people can become a breeding ground for new diseases, or for mutated forms of the epidemic disease (think influenza, or AIDS).

"Is she compensated? I don't think so."

I have generally heard this amendment invoked as the basis by which property taken by eminent domain must be paid for at market rate. I've never heard anyone say that it forbids general taxation. Has this theory come before the Supremes?

Again, the theory behind public education means that she is compensated by the production of a better educated population. This means that 1) they can make more informed and intelligent choices in the election of public officials, and 2) our industries are more productive because of a better educated workforce. I confess that I don't know if point 2 is actually invoked in the justification of public education, but I believe it to be true. In any case, this benefits everyone.

Has the validity of using the Commerce clause in the Constitution to do this come before the Supremes?

My understanding is that stretching the Commerce Clause to cover all manner of federal involvement in our lives became SOP for the Supreme Court during the New Deal.

But I wish that someone would specifically raise the issue before the Supreme Court with respect to education. If the Commerce Clause can be expanded to cover local schools, then I would like to hear the rationale. It would be amusing -- though in a very sad way. Kind of like watching Dr. Strangelove, but with more serious real world implications.

Caleraly, one cannot rationally claim that the curriculum in a local school comes under the category of comermce between the states.

You are guaranteed representation in the government that taxes you and allocates those taxes. You are not (and cannot be) guaranteed that the programs those taxes are spent for are efficacious.

But you are guaranteed that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Also notice that between you and me in the previous two paragraphs, only my phrasing actually comes from that little thing called the "Constitution". What does that say to you?

Thus, it is a general good that the public be educated,

Right, or a "public use".

On this basis, governments have established and funded public education.

Right, and some people do not receive "just compensation". I'm with you.

If this example held, none of us should pay taxes to support any services we do not use,

Imagine that, what a horrible world that would be. None of us would have to pay for things we didn't use. Just horrible. I'm shuddering just thinking about it.

I've never heard anyone say that it forbids general taxation.

If you'll read closely I never said that it forbids general taxation. Try again.

Again, the theory behind public education means that she is compensated by the production of a better educated population.

That's a swell "theory".

In any case, this benefits everyone.

So you say.

It was not clear to me from your statement that you were referring only to the Federal government's funding of public education, and not the states.

In that case you could have looked at my Post #33 where I wrote

....which would seem to render a federal "Department of Education" unconstitutional, leaving it a state matter.

"State matter". Seems clear enough. When someone challenged me I wrote in Post #73

Was power over children's education delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

The phrase "the United States" obviously refers to the federal government (taken directly from Amendment X). So you could have looked at my Post #73, as well.

In fact I'm not even sure which of my posts you actually did read....

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.