Vanity: The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional - If That Doesn't Convince You What Will?

June 26, 2002 | Jim Robinson

[Texasforever]

I wonder what he means by that.

Simple, it means that the DOJ is looking at the options to challenge this decision.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So post it for us. Moses needed help to keep his arms up in the air so the Israelites could win.

[restornu]

Sorry folks, I feel a conspiracy being hatch by the tarnished image of the Democrats and they want to fool the American Citizen again, that they are so loyal and are appalled that this happen! GIVE ME A BREAKE!

Dashel called this creep back into service so they could get the citizens look to the Dems as the good guys, for restoring the Pledge!

After all they have been waning in the polls for months and they want to get their rating up!

The were too organized as the report broke-

Inside Trading?

If this can be proven can these creeps be brought up on charges just like the folks in the stock market.

[Mo1]

Oh Geez .. John Conyers .. I forgot about him to ..

Well I'm off to have nightmare tonight .. Sweet Dreams All and don't forget

HERE'S THE TOLL FREE NUMBER FOR THE CAPITOL: 1-800-648-3516

and

US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

[Mo1]

The were too organized as the report broke-

I have to admit .. I was amazed at how fast the Midget ran to the senate floor

[A Navy Vet]

Why bother them with the documented intent when it's so much more gratifying to argue sematics.

[medved]

The people who do these kinds of things ( e.g. try to outlaw the pledge of allegiance) believe that man is a meat byproduct of random, stochastic processes, and are simply acting acordingly. This one should also be a wakeup call for anybody who views the teaching of evolutionism in American schools as harmless.

[Mo1]

But then again .. I'm thinking they were just afraid of getting pinned for this one

[summer]

FYI, just to let you all know some public schools have been on this issue, and some states already passed new laws, including FL (see my post #51 on this thread).

------------------------------------------

And, from Education Week:

March 27, 2002

States Weigh Bills to Stoke Students' Patriotism

By John Gehring

State lawmakers around the country have been crafting legislation that would have schools begin the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, post the national motto "In God We Trust" in classrooms, or require students to take classes that teach patriotism.

The flurry of bills, many of which are still pending, has emerged against a broader backdrop of renewed national pride following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Many of the proposals are welcomed by those who say schools have drifted too far from teaching patriotic values and the tenets of American democracy. Critics see the efforts as attempts to mandate patriotic correctness and as examples of old-fashioned political grandstanding.

Either way, the debates over the issue often touch raw nerves.

"It's hard to vote against something like this because people misinterpret what you're saying," said Rep. Frank Weddig of Colorado, a Democrat who opposes a bill that would require schools to include the Pledge of Allegiance in the school day.

In Missouri, Sen. Ted House, the Democratic chairman of the education committee, introduced a bill that would require all K-12 public schools to offer the pledge. "The mandate is on the schools and not the students," he said. "We don't demand loyalty."

He sponsored the same legislation three years ago, only to watch it fail. This year, it passed 32-0 in the Senate and has moved to the House.

"There was a noticeable difference after September 11," Mr. House said.

High Court Has Spoken

According to the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures, half the states now require schools to offer the Pledge of Allegiance during the school day, though students can choose not to participate. Six states recommend that schools make time for the pledge.

This year, bills that would require schools to conduct the pledge have been introduced in several states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Mississippi, Missouri, and Indiana.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1943, in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, that students can't be forced to recite the pledge. While aiming to steer clear of unconstitutional waters, state legislators have been seeking to require, or at least strongly encourage, schools to offer the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to revive a tradition they say has been lost in many schools.

"I was surprised to find that some of the schools were not saying it on a voluntary basis," said Rep. F. Philip Prelli, a Connecticut Republican who introduced a bill that would require schools to set aside time each day to say the pledge.

"I can't force patriotism, but if I never teach patriotism, I can't build the base for it," Mr. Prelli continued. "We were getting away from patriotism in this country. For generations we all said the Pledge of Allegiance. We should be doing that for our children now."

But Teresa Younger, the executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the state should not be meddling in an area better left to local control.

"There are school districts that already do this. We are concerned about the state mandating this," she said.

Elsewhere, lawmakers have also considered bills that would require schools to hang signs reading "In God We Trust"-the national motto, which appears on U.S. currency. A year ago, Mississippi became the first state to pass such a law. Michigan followed and adopted a similar measure in December.

The American Family Association, a conservative Christian group in Tupelo, Miss., has for the past few years mobilized a national campaign to have the motto-which was adopted by Congress in 1956-posted in schools around the country.

Randy Sharp, the director of special projects with the AFA, said the terrorist attacks created a renewed interest in the effort. At least 15 states, Mr. Sharp said, now require or strongly encourage displaying the motto in classrooms.

"Because no legal challenges to the motto have been successful, the ACLU has admitted the public display of our national motto is constitutional. Yet, some ACLU chapters continue to intimidate local school boards by threatening a lawsuit."

David Owens, the superintendent of the 29,000-student Clay County, Fla., public schools, said the national motto has been posted in all of his district's schools. A bill in the Florida legislature that would require schools to post the motto has been approved by the House.

"If it's a way of building patriotism, I'm all for it," Mr. Owens said. "When I told the principals about this, they all wanted it. This has been very well-received here."

Patriotism Classes

In another twist on the same theme, lawmakers in a number of states have pushed for having students take patriotism classes. Such courses, the sponsors argue, would improve young people's understanding of what it means to be an American citizen.

In Colorado, for example, a bill offered by Sen. John Andrews, a Republican, would have required students in every grade to take an "age appropriate" unit of patriotism that would complement what students already learn in history or civics classes.

The Senate, however, has amended the bill so that it would encourage rather than mandate the classes. The unit would include a review of the country's founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

"Our goal was to do what we can to see that the new mood of valuing this country and our heritage is more than just a mood, that it's the beginning of a new approach with what we do with our students in school," Mr. Andrews said.

But Senate President Stan Matsunaka said lawmakers were just trying to win political points with patriotism.

"This is grandstanding at its worst," Mr. Matsunaka, a Democrat running for governor, asserted.

"The Republicans want to wrap themselves in the flag and say they are more patriotic than Democrats," he said. "I think it's hogwash."

In "Patriotism Revisited," October 2001, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation President Chester E. Finn Jr. writes, "In the aftermath of September 11, as American educators decide which side of this pedagogical divide they and their schools will take, I choose ... that of the Arkansas superintendent who told his students last week that 'It's OK to love your country and love your flag.'"

In an October 18 letter to New York City Public Schools Chancellor Harold O. Levy, the New York Civil Liberties Union objects to mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. "While the New York City schools can lawfully make the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance part of the daily school routine, the Board of Education bears a heavy responsibility to ensure that no student is compelled to participate," writes Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU.

The American Center for Law and Justice urges districts to allow patriotic displays in their letter "Patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance in School." "During this terrible and distressing time, your District serves its students and families well when it expresses patriotic sentiments and allows organized patriotic exercises," writes Chief Counsel Jay Alan Sekulow. Their letter was sent to all U.S. State School Superintendents.

In "The Ten Commandments Controversy," the Anti-Defamation League says that while the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools is often "well-intentioned ... is both unconstitutional and bad policy."

PHOTOS: Missouri Sens. David Klindt,
left, and Chuck Gross, both Republicans, recite the Pledge of Allegiance on the Senate floor, where a bill to require public schools to offer the pledge passed unanimously.

-Kelley McCall/AP

[UncleJeff]

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

History of the

Pledge of Allegiance

 

Submitted by MAJ. Silas W. Bass

Historian General

 

Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for the observance of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus. Since 1891, he had been working on a journal for juveniles entitled, “Youth’s Companion.” He worked closely with James B. Upham, the editor of the paper.

Bellamy’s job on the paper was to promote patriotism and the flying of the flag over the public schools. He was made chairman of the executive committee for the national public school celebration of Columbus Day in 1892.

Bellamy visited President Benjamin Harrison to ask him to endorse the idea of a flag over every schoolhouse and the teaching of patriotism in all the schools. On June 21, 1892, President Harrison signed the proclamation that said, “Let the national flag float on every schoolhouse in the country and the exercises be such as shall impress upon our youth the patriotic duties of American citizenship!”

Francis Bellamy wrote these now famous words, first printed in “Youth’s Companion.” September 8, 1892:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

At the Second National Flag Conference held in Washington, D.C., on Flag Day, 1924, they added the words, “of America.”

A further change was made in the Pledge by House Joint Resolution 243, approved by President Eisenhower on June 14, 1954, which added the words, “under God,” so that it now reads:

“one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

---

[summer]

See my post #129. I meant to ping you! :)

[Sandy]

What options? Just appeal the thing. It's a no-brainer, actually.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

This is one thing that keeps me wondering if Bush is an ok president. If Bush were to stick to his guns and insist on ignoring ABA recommendations, that would be a significant victory.

The best way we can help is to inform people just how liberal judges are and how liberal the ABA is. I heard an old America's Voice program years ago, because the former president of the ABA was on. He said that Clinton was the geatest president in US history.

And that clown was supposed to say who the President is allowed to appoint? No wonder our court system is messed up.

[Wondervixen]

That Repub Judge has been there since NIXON appointed him almost 30 years ago...Rubbing elbows with the rest of the Gay Bay crowd that long MIGHT turn a moderate conservative soft but I'm willing to bet he wasn't even a moderate in the first place!

[HiTech RedNeck]

This has been yanked so much out of context that it absolutely screams.

[UncleJeff]

Kindly be a bit more specific.

[cva66snipe]

You have every right to participate in the election of liberals with your protest vote. I guess that is great position to be in with “ don’t blame me I voted for INSERT FAVORITE 3rd PARTY CANDIDATE NAME HERE”. You are never wrong.

Look I'm one of many who want change in the GOP. If you have read my post then you know I have stated over and over I will vote GOP if the canidate will uphold the constitution. If not I will not vote for them. I bet you I have supported far less liberals than you have. So don't go their with it.

If the GOP want's votes from conservatives especially those who are getting fed up then they better start having a listen. What I posted in Post # 73 is reasonable and basic. Why can you not understand that to correct the problem you must first ADDRESS IT! Good grief I see screams for needed numbers in this house and that. Want numbers? Fine. Give me 33 in the senate.

Give me 33 senators who will take the constitution of our nation to heart and abide by it and I'll show you a changed nation and an ongoing leglislative crisis solved. Is 33 a majority? No it's by no means a majority. Were the 52 who formed our constitution a majority of the United States? No!

The mere small 33 insisting that the constitution be abided by would make the lives of the remaining 67 misserable. More important it would just by the averages of fors and against votes from either party make the other 66 members consider their arguement to sway them. Such as these we used to call our repected Statesmen. It doesn't take a majority in that respect to bring change. It takes just a very few willing to say we will be heard. 33 good senators and the remaining 66 split to either side gives you what? A working majority I do believe. This is what I have been saying all along it's not the total numbers of either parties size that is hurting this nation. It is the absense of 33 senators who will stand firm for constitutional goverment we are so sorely lacking.

Give this nation the abiding 33 {Republicans is fine with me BTW} and the others will have to do business with them or nothing will pass which right now would be a blessing perhaps if it stopped some of the insane leglislation as of late.

I understand your numbers OK. Now I'm telling you the true numbers that are going to be what actually changes the course of this nation for the better. Or the lack of that number will condemn it to it's end. Give me 33 GOP senators who will stand up and fight for our constitution and B.O.R. That means 33 refusing to move on till the matter at hand is solved. Does that sound fair enough?

[Wondervixen]

Wouldn't this just be juicy if this judge IS a good moral conservative RETIRED magistrate who took it upon himself to fan the flames in order to show us all that he's been waiting TWO YEARS holding down a spot on the bench waiting to go enjoy his retirement, but DASSHOLE, LEAHY, and the DUMOCRAPS wont send his Bush Nominated replacement so he can do it?

[summer]

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

Uncle Jeff, True story here: Tonight I was at a very casual cafe bookstore hang-out, where, yes, there are sometimes a few old hippies too, and one young guy and his old hippie friends started to talking to me about this issue, and they were telling me why they agreed with the judge today.

And, I told them this: When someone says "God" in the pledge, if the person chooses to say that, well I think the exact definition of what that word means is a very private, and between the person and that's person's God, and if your definition is different in some way than mine, even if we both have the same religion, or a different religion, well, can you live with that idea? That difference? The word God may not mean the exact same to you as to me?

Because I think that is freedom of speech too. And no law should prohibit it.

What exactly you perceive in this highly personal matter of religion does not have to exactly mirror what I perceive.

And, do you know what, UncleJeff? He and all his friends eventually agreed with me. They could live with that. That freedom of speech.

Then they told me why they initially felt so much desire at first to side with the judge: they want to be known for something. And, they feel their time is running out. They are not yet famous for anything, so: they picked this.

I am not making this up. It was an interesting conversation.