Posted on 07/01/2002 10:40:17 PM PDT by kattracks
The Pledge of Alliance is unconstitutional or so we are told by a federal appellate court located in California. By a 2 to 1 margin the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that allowing school children to recite the Pledge is an impermissible establishment of religion. One judge had the good sense to dissent from the holding, but the other two simply defied logic, legal reasoning, and the Constitution.
To say the court's ruling is outrageous is like saying the sinking of the Titanic was unfortunate or that the events of September 11th were unpleasant. With their ruling, these two judges have effectively turned-in their judicial robes and become court jesters.
I appreciate humor as much as the next guy, but this simply is not funny. This ruling provides a clear and vivid example of why all Americans should oppose activist judges who ignore the Constitution, the law, established historical precedent and the will of the people and instead impose their will on the rest of us by judicial fiat.
Allowing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is no more an establishment of religion than allowing students to study the Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and also refers to "God" by name. If allowing students to say the Pledge is unconstitutional, perhaps students will next be barred from buying school lunches with money imprinted with the words, "In God We Trust." These judges apparently believe that Constitution bans use of the word, "God."
Their ruling shows a profound misunderstanding of both the Constitution and our history. On the issue of freedom of religion, the Constitution forbids that (1) the government establish a religion; and (2) the government prohibit the free exercise of religion. For the record, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The actual words are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Merely uttering the word God is not the establishment of a religion.
Years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, correctly in my estimation, that the government could not require or force students to recite the Pledge. But these two judges went well beyond prohibiting forced recitation of the Pledge. They ruled that allowing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional and an "establishment of religion." If their absurd ruling stands, school children will be prohibited from beginning their school day reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
These two judges are so far off base and so wildly out of the mainstream, and have so completely tortured the plan language of the Constitution that they have violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They have no right to impose their wacky views and opinions on the rest of us. To do so, is tyranny and does violence to the Constitution itself.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a well-deserved reputation for legal lunacy. It is the most liberal and the most frequently overturned federal appeals court in the entire nation. It is now obvious why.
What most folks don¹t know is that many of the Ninth Circuit's past decisions when on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could not win even a single vote of support not even from the Supreme Court¹s liberal justices. For example, in 1998, five cases appealed from the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court all five cases were overturned on 9-0 votes. But now America has even more striking evidence of the insanity of the Ninth Circuit these nut-jobs believe that reciting the Pledge of Alliance is unconstitutional.
This case illustrates the need for solid judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and our laws. To this end, President Bush has submitted to the Senate a number of highly qualified nominees for the federal bench. Nominees who will interpret the law and Constitution as they are written, rather than imposing their views and opinions. Yet, for over 412 days, Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy have obstructed and delayed and refused even to schedule a hearing for the vast majority of President Bush's appellate court nominees. Perhaps, being told that the Pledge is unconstitutional will awaken Americans to the need for reliable and reasonable judges.
Former Senator Malcolm Wallop is chairman and founder of Frontiers of Freedom, a TownHall.com member group.
Contact Malcolm Wallop | Read his biography
©2002 Frontiers of Freedom
The mere utterance or the words "under God" can hardly be construed as being the "establishment of a religion," but the ruling that one may not utter it in a public edifice is certainly contrary to a citizen's right to "freely exercise" their religion (the part the libs always seem to forget!)
You really have to wonder why the atheists believe that simply saying the word "God" will consume thier children and have them speaking in tongues or bearing the stigmata!
You have misstated the situation. Feel free to utter "under God" to your heart's content even in a public school building. The courts won't stop you. Just don't have the government or public school sponsor it or lead children (or adults) in saying it, even voluntarily.
Despite what you may feel, the government has no right to indoctrinate my children with your religious views or your children with my religious views. The government should not favor one religious view over another. That is what the court is saying.
Sorry, but the First Amendment also does not give you the right to freely practice your religion inside my home. That permission belongs to me and my wife. Er...correction, that belongs to my wife (she says).
Could you explain to me...just what religion IS it that the 9th Circuit is saying is being established by saying "under God"? Which religion's "God" does "under God" refer to?
Since MORE than ONE religion refers to its Supreme Being as "God" (or a derivation or synonym of the word/name "God"), e.g. the Jewish and Christian "God," the Islamic "God" "Allah," the Bhuddist "God" "Bhuddah," the Hindu "God" "Rama," etc., I'm just not clear what RELIGION is being established.
You have misunderstood the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
The federal courts have no jurisdiction in the matter, because Constitutionally there can be no federal law.
Feel free to utter "under God" to your heart's content even in a public school building. The courts won't stop you. Just don't have the government or public school sponsor it or lead children (or adults) in saying it, even voluntarily.
This is a matter for individual schools to decide. If you don't like the decision of a particular school, choose another, or work to change the decision.
Despite what you may feel, the government has no right to indoctrinate my children with your religious views or your children with my religious views.
Your children have the option to remain silent during the two words "under God." During this time, they can contemplate the diversity of religious belief.
The government should not favor one religious view over another. That is what the court is saying.
In this case, a federal court shouldn't be saying anything.
I'll let President Eisenhower explain it to you (from his statement when he signed the bill authorizing the insertion of "under God" in the pledge):
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
That religion.
The courts have generally sided with my view of the First Amendment, not yours.
The federal courts have no jurisdiction in the matter, because Constitutionally there can be no federal law.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying -- are your arguing that this is a local matter and thus the federal courts have no jurisdiction? State law, under which the public schools are established, must be consistent with the Constitution in matters that the Constitution addresses. I believe in the Tenth Amendment and states rights myself, but I think this case falls under the First Amendment.
Your children have the option to remain silent during the two words "under God." During this time, they can contemplate the diversity of religious belief.
Why should a child be forced to profess their belief or nonbelief? If the child professes nonbelief, he/she is subject to all the biases, prejudices, and ostracism of peers and teachers. It would be better that children (or anyone, for that matter) not have to declare their beliefs to government/public school authorities.
I was specifically referring to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, not federal law in general. The First is very clear that Congress shall enact no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
And you missed my point that the decision to include "under God" in the Pledge, or to say the Pledge at all, should be reserved to local, not state or federal jurisdiction. If the local PTA decides to include it, that's not state-supported religious indoctrination, is it.
Be honest, man, you don't agree with religious diversity, do you? You think the god you worship is the one and true god, don't you, and that all who don't worship your god are condemned to hell. Be honest now...
Wow, what next--infer my shirt size and refrigerator contents?
Yes, it is a local matter, unless there is a state or federal law that requires that the Pledge of Allegiance be said, and that the words "under God" be included (which would be unconstitutional). If there is no such law and individual schools choose to recite the Pledge by convention or by choice of the relevant PTA or school board, then a federal court has no business legislating from the bench, especially when such legislation would clearly violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
A public school and its board are subject to the Constitution, regardless of how local you may believe they are. Think of Brown vs. Board of Education, for example. Or perhaps you are in disagreement with that particular unanimous Supreme Court ruling.
If the school board let the PTA be in control of school policy regarding the pledge, then I imagine the PTA (and/or the board) would be enjoined by the court from endorsing one religious view over another.
If your PTA is a strictly private organization, then who cares whether it says the pledge with "under God" or without at its own meetings.
You seem to assume that the free exercise part of the First Amendment trumps the establishment part of the First Amendment. If that were so, then government could do virtually whatever it wanted as far as religion was concerned and the establishment clause would be essentially meaningless. I do not believe that was the intent of the First Amendment.
Religion can be freely practiced in your home, your church, your internet site, your private school, your letters to the editor or congressmen, your street corner, etc. You are not free, however, to impose your religion on my children in a public school.
You're throwing some real softballs here. Neither a public school nor its board should be subjected to unconstitutional federal legislation, whether it issues from a proper legislative body or improperly from the bench, regardless of how convenient a broadly statist mandate might be to you.
Also, in addition to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas not being especially germane here, there was widespread disagreement and non-compliance with its ruling. Recall Eisenhower's comment that "the Supreme Court Decision [Brown v. Board] set back progress in the South at least fifteen years. The fellow who tries to tell me you can do these things by force is just plain nuts."
If the school board let the PTA be in control of school policy regarding the pledge, then I imagine the PTA (and/or the board) would be enjoined by the court from endorsing one religious view over another.
Given courts' predilection for unconstitutional meddling on this issue, it would be no surprise.
You seem to assume that the free exercise part of the First Amendment trumps the establishment part of the First Amendment. If that were so, then government could do virtually whatever it wanted as far as religion was concerned and the establishment clause would be essentially meaningless. I do not believe that was the intent of the First Amendment.
We agree that that was not the intent of the First Amendment--the intent is near opposite. Your logic is flawed, however, as the intent does not rest on the relative strength of the subordinate clauses, but rather on the crystal clear principal statement--"Congress shall make no law... That is the intent, i.e. government is to leave its nose out of religion.
Religion can be freely practiced in your home, your church, your internet site, your private school, your letters to the editor or congressmen, your street corner, etc. You are not free, however, to impose your religion on my children in a public school.
No less free than to walk past your residence once a day for thirty seconds, carrying a sign spelling out the Pledge of Allegiance. Your kid can ignore it, carry his/her own sign, or if adult age, join my religion or start a new one. Welcome to America.
If unconstitutional federal legislation were involved, I would be the first to join you in criticizing it. For example, I detest CFR and believe it to be completely unconstitutional legislation. I suspect you do also. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will toss CFR out so fast McCain will fall out of his chair.I do not agree with your argument, however, that the recent court ruling against "under God" in the Pledge is "legislation". Those words in the Pledge clearly raise First Amendment issues. The federal court is correct to address it, whatever they decide. State legislatures that require that public schools have the "under God" pledge are passing legislation that may well be unconstitutional, IMHO.
This court ruling is a statist mandate? Ha, Ha. Actually it restricts government (or the local school and school board that act under government laws) from imposing the religious views of the majority on the minority.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas not being especially germane here
My point clearly was that the Constitution applies to local school boards. Somehow you were arguing that the court didn't have any jurisdiction in this matter which you saw as local.Re your other comments about Brown vs. Board -- I lived through those times in the Deep South during and after Brown vs. Board. You should have seen the deplorable physical conditions of the black schools in the city where I grew up. Anything would have been an improvement. It was clear that blacks were not receiving equal schooling in the Deep South.
I don't remember hearing your quote from Eisenhower. I don't doubt he might have said it, but if you don't mind, could you give me a source.
We agree that that was not the intent of the First Amendment--the intent is near opposite. Your logic is flawed, however, as the intent does not rest on the relative strength of the subordinate clauses, but rather on the crystal clear principal statement--"Congress shall make no law... That is the intent, i.e. government is to leave its nose out of religion.
I don't follow your argument here, but no matter. Both religion clauses in the First Amendment are important to me. I absolutely agree with your statement at the end that government should keep its nose out of religion. To you, however, this seems to mean that federal courts should not concern themselves with whether local public schools are disobeying the supreme law of the land with respect to the First Amendment. I respectfully disagree.
No less free than to walk past your residence once a day for thirty seconds, carrying a sign spelling out the Pledge of Allegiance. Your kid can ignore it, carry his/her own sign, or if adult age, join my religion or start a new one.
Absolutely. Come on down, and I'll give you a beer. We can toast our respective and heartfelt. though different, interpretations of the Constitution, and I'll even let you pray on my front lawn out of respect for your beliefs.
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.