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

To: seamus
It is not voluntary for the state-run schools to lead the class in the pledge -- at least it is not in Virginia, where schools are directed by the state government and the local school boards to lead the pledge, and I presume it's that way in California, too.

So it is voluntary - voluntary on the part of the States.

That is why this case abuts the Establishment Clause. While individuals can opt-out, it is still the state making a statement that endorses monotheism.

You, my friend, have just illustrated why this case is not about the Establishment Clause.

The First Amendment doesn't prohibit the States from doing a darn thing!

47 posted on 07/01/2002 5:19:34 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Frank
The First Amendment doesn't prohibit the States from doing a darn thing!

By that standard, Brown v. Board of Education is unconstutional, too. Was it not the states that ran the schools in Kansas? Was it not the Supreme Court (the federal government) that intervened when Linda Brown's right to an equal educational opportunity was being denied by a state's policy? Is it not the Supreme Court that has ruled creches on public land (be it owned by a state, the feds, or a local government) unconstutional?

50 posted on 07/01/2002 5:23:44 PM PDT by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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