Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Fox News ^

Posted on 06/26/2002 11:25:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat

UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


TOPICS: Announcements; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Alaska; US: Arizona; US: California; US: Hawaii; US: Idaho; US: Montana; US: Nevada; US: Oregon; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuitcourt; michaeldobbs; pledgeofallegiance; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,461-1,477 next last
To: Joe Brower
Well fortunately for you this ruling had nothing to do whatsoever with an individual's right to say the pledge.
661 posted on 06/26/2002 1:06:57 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Howlin
I wonder what the hot topic will be tonight on the Dose? I called my golf buddy and told her. She is in shock. Her son is in Boy Scouts and they recite the pledge all the time. She said she'll bring it up in church on Sunday, but suspects it will be a hot topic.
662 posted on 06/26/2002 1:07:11 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Britton J Wingfield; CecilRhodesGhost; flyervet; Dimensio; Equality 7-2521; jlogajan; BMCDA; ...
The circuit court is right.

If The Pledge of Allegiance is an official national institution like the Stars and Stripes or the National Anthem, then it should be inclusive to all Americans, and not tailored to Christians and Jews.

"So if you don't like it, don't say it!". Well, that's not how it's supposed to be. There's not an alternate Pledge, there's just one, and the insinuation is that in order to properly pledge your allegiance to our flag and our republic you must state your belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

"This is awful during time of war! The Taliban would be laughing at us right now!!" Well, I guarantee you that if the Taliban were in charge of this country, you can be sure that every pledge you made would state "under God". Every document you signed, every vow you took and every contact you signed would proclaim "under God".

"We conservative Republicans should take to the streets! There should be widespread civil disobedience!" Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's think... who do we usually see taking to the streets in civil disobedience because of religion. Can you say "Muslim Fundamentalists"? Is that who we want to emulate?

I cant understand you "conservatives"! You all want the Federal Government to butt out, to be small and tiny and to only provide for the national defense and printing of coinage but when it comes to Christianity you all want the Federal Government to put "God" all over everything! Shouldn't the Federal Fovernment butt out of our affairs?

In closing, there have been and are currently millions of wonderful, patriotic and loyal Americans who are neither Jewish or Christian, and they deserve to be able to proclaim their belief in the American way of life without their religious faith (or lack thereof) beig a qualifier.

Thank you all for your time, I fully expect to be banned for this post.
663 posted on 06/26/2002 1:07:27 PM PDT by NeoCrusade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Can you make this EXTRA LARGE PLEASE? Here's the Capitol Phone Number last time I used it: #1-800-648-3516.

Tell their operator your state and COMPLAIN, CALL BACK AND COMPLAIN AGAIN. THEN TELL THE OPERATOR CALIFORNIA and COMPLAIN TO CALIFORNIA... Regards, FV

664 posted on 06/26/2002 1:07:43 PM PDT by floriduh voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: katya8
The words Eisenhower so arrogantly added in 1954 - the "under God" words, are indeed unconstitutional and need to be removed, because they make a large segment of the population feel extremely uncomfortable, and those people are just as much TRUE AMERICANS as you are!

No, they are not. Anyone who feels "extremely uncomfortable" with the word God being used in a generic fashion to represent the uniqueness of mankind, the wonder of the world, and our committment to the principles of GOOD that come from philosophies precursor - RELIGION.... as well as the ideas about THE SOURCE OF OUR RIGHTS being rooted in all the above as honored in perpetuity by the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - is NOT, NOT a "true American".

"Extremely uncomfortable" indeed! What- are you comfortable living amongst such people as long as they don't use that nasty little word? Good grief.

665 posted on 06/26/2002 1:07:53 PM PDT by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Newdow .... Can you say ego trip?

So true. This guy is currently the biggest jackass in the United States of America.

666 posted on 06/26/2002 1:07:55 PM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat; LonePalm; Argh; xsmommy; hobbes1; christine11; RikaStrom; Slip18; ...
One nation under GOD

667 posted on 06/26/2002 1:08:06 PM PDT by TxBec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Let's get this straight; the atheist didn't want his daughter to 'remain silent," right, but has absolutely NO PROBLEM with the others, the vast majority, who want to say the pledge remaining silent?
668 posted on 06/26/2002 1:08:15 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
When I look in the mirror I see one ugly SOB...

but from what I've seen and heard of you - when you look in the mirror you don't see a damn thing.

669 posted on 06/26/2002 1:08:18 PM PDT by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
So, this is the same annoying person that I saw interviewed about this case last year. This person is apparently working in an Emergency Room somewhere in San Francisco. This is not someone whom I would trust to treat anyone in my family, since he obviously spends way too much time on things other than medicine. Plus I think he is obsessed.
670 posted on 06/26/2002 1:08:35 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Commentaries on the Constitution - 1833

Scroll down and all of it is online.

671 posted on 06/26/2002 1:08:38 PM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Watching CNN......Judy's reported concerned the ruling AND how the Republicans are already planning to blame this on Daschle. Not one WORD about possible dissent.
672 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:17 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
This isn't new from Michael Newdow -- he's been trying to pull this stunt since the late 90's in south Florida. This is a 1999 article from New Times Broward-Palm Beach:
Originally published by New Times Broward-Palm Beach Sep 30, 1999
©2002 New Times, Inc. All rights reserved.

For 45 years the Pledge of Allegiance has included a mention of the Almighty. Atheist Michael Newdow is suing for removal.

Penned in 1892 by a socialist minister turned journalist named Francis Bellamy, the Pledge of Allegiance originally read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands -- one nation, indivisible -- with liberty, and justice for all."

But Broward County's public schoolchildren -- who are led to recite the pledge every morning by school board decree -- say more than that, of course. Through the years the pledge has been altered to include the United States of America and God. The former was added in the '20s as a reminder to new immigrants of just whose flag they were pledging allegiance to. And in 1954, when the U.S. was frostbitten by the Cold War and godless communists were invading its institutions, Congress, with President Eisenhower's blessing, added "under God."

Taken in this historical light, the pledge is not something Michael Newdow wants to mess with; he wants to restore it. In June 1998 the 46-year-old physician filed suit against President Clinton, the U.S. Congress, and the School Board of Broward County in hopes of getting "under God" deleted from the pledge. That act of 1954, he argues, violated the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion." Newdow, a part-time resident of Fort Lauderdale, also argues that his five-year-old daughter, whom he's raising to be an atheist like himself, shouldn't be subjected to the pledge every morning. It will only make her feel like an "outsider," he says, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot endorse religious belief precisely because such an endorsement alienates nonbelievers.

Newdow's suit was dismissed in December. He appealed the case this past spring, and the appellate court is slated to render its decision any day now.

Newdow is no kook. In fact, he's highly educated -- with degrees from Brown University, UCLA medical school, and University of Michigan's law school -- and argues a mean game when it comes to church-state issues. "Every constitutional lawyer I talked to told me, 'There is no question it is unconstitutional, and there is no question that you will lose,'" Newdow says.

The initial dismissal of his suit, however, was based not on the merits of his legal arguments but on a technicality. U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages agreed with federal lawyers who argued that Newdow lacked proper standing to sue because his daughter wasn't yet in school. Newdow says his daughter now may wind up attending school in another district altogether, but he hopes that the appellate court will rule that he has standing based on his assertion that he's still a taxpayer in Broward County.

In the original case, assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Stuart also argued that, even if Newdow was qualified to file the suit, nobody was going to force his daughter to recite the pledge; she could simply sit it out. Newdow posits that, even if his daughter were to sit the pledge out, she would still be subjected to "religious dogma" in school and probably be considered an "outsider."

"At age five," he writes in his appeal, "this harm is especially acute, since she will be unable to… deal with its consequences."

Stuart also cited a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Justice William J. Brennan suggested that "under God" does not violate the First Amendment because the religious meaning has been "lost through rote repetition." Other Supreme Court justices, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office, have written that the pledge is "consistent with the principle that the government may not endorse religious belief," and that its reference to God doesn't make the pledge a "religious exercise."

Newdow counters that the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the act of 1954, or the phrase "under God" in the pledge, a point the government concedes. All the Supreme Court citations used by the government were made as side issues in other church-state cases. In his legal briefs, Newdow cites more than 50 cases to bolster his argument, including the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case, in which the court ruled that Congress is forbidden to pass laws that advance religion or have a religious effect.

"But how does he respond to the Judeo-Christian birth of this nation and to the fact that that we're a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles?" asks Gene Kapp, spokesman for the American Center For Law and Justice, which is aligned with the Christian Coalition.

Newdow addresses this issue in his court filings, noting that the founding fathers made no reference to God in the Constitution or its preamble. The First Amendment's insistence on the separation of church and state, he argues, is the most glaring proof that the founders didn't want religion commingling with government.

The Newdow case isn't the only controversy the pledge has faced of late. In Texas a school district recently banned the pledge to avoid potential lawsuits over its religious nature. The district has since lifted the ban, but the issue -- and the constitutionality of the act of 1954 -- remains unsettled, says Steve Benen, the spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United For the Separation of Church and State (AU).

"Clearly Congress was trying to use religion as a political tool in 1954, and that raises serious church-state concerns," says Benen, whose organization boasts 60,000 members nationwide. "It's a sound argument, but Mr. Newdow likely won't prevail. The courts are just unwilling to consider the controversy, as evidenced. There may be many judges that fear political consequences. It would be outrageous to so many religious people if 'under God' was taken from the pledge."

Benen says that AU won't join the pledge fight for strictly pragmatic reasons. There are more timely and winnable battles in which to engage, he says. For instance, the AU is currently arguing a case in Florida against the use of vouchers that allow tax money to be used to send kids to Christian schools.

Newdow says his pledge fight -- unlike AU's strategic battles -- is essentially personal. The act of 1954 infringes on his own religious freedom, he claims. He's a minister of atheism, ordained by the Universal Life Church, a controversial California entity that has ordained millions of ministers of all stripes and beliefs at the mere asking. Newdow says he'll be opening his church, the First Amendment Church of True Science (FACTS), soon, likely on the Internet. Atheists, he argues, shouldn't have to pledge to a God in whom they don't believe. He compares his refusal to that expected of Christians, who would surely refuse to pledge allegiance to "one nation under Allah." Atheists, he says, are among the last groups in the U.S. that are fair game for hatred and discrimination. (At least six states still have laws barring atheists -- who make up between 4 and 13 percent of the U.S. population -- from holding public office.)

He concedes that there isn't much sympathy for atheists in mainstream America and that his cause, which has been unpublicized until now, is likely to be met with popular derision. Still Newdow says he's certain that the appellate court, on the strength of his exhaustive arguments, will have to rule with him. If it does, the case could eventually land in the Supreme Court, where the act of 1954 would get its final challenge.

If the appellate court rules against him, Newdow says he'll refile the case in another district. "I'll just have to start over," he says. "I'm not going to stop banging my head against this wall."

673 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:22 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: BADJOE
"Round up a posse. Let's lynch the basrards. : )"

Did you not know that it is against the law to execute the criminally insane or the terminally stupid, we are going to have to rely on the supreme court

Oh crap..... we're screwed!

674 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:26 PM PDT by SERE_DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
My "unalienable" (not inalienable) rights include Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

Freedom of religion is not an unalienable right, but all the same it is a right we have embraced in our country. Our 1st Amendment protects that.

Here, we have Big Government stepping in and endoctrinating children with religious views. That's not right and it's a violation of our 1st Amendment rights.

675 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:34 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Will do. Thanks...
676 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:36 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Balls comment, knee jerk.
677 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:40 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
> Why does a set of communist beliefs have more rights than a set of Christian beliefs?

"So that we can prove we're better than the Nazis."

</cuomo> LOL!

678 posted on 06/26/2002 1:09:55 PM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Every time I see someone commenting on how they are looking forward to the appeal to the USSC I am forced to resist the urge to respond in all CAPS and boldface detailing the exact nature and implications of this ruling and exactly what it means for the case at hand. Somehow, I manage not to succumb.
679 posted on 06/26/2002 1:10:04 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
However, many of us have sworn oaths to defend the nation from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Domestic enemies are a problem area for those who have taken the oath but fall into the catagory themselves.

680 posted on 06/26/2002 1:10:31 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,461-1,477 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson