Posted on 08/07/2002 5:26:55 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The mother of the 8-year-old referenced in the Pledge of Allegiance ruling has filed a motion to intervene, arguing the plaintiff – the girl's atheist father – doesn't have legal standing. Alternatively, Sandra Banning wants the case thrown out.
Michael Newdow filed the now-infamous case on behalf of himself and his second-grade daughter against Congress for inserting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge in 1954 and against the Elk Grove Unified School District for its policy to have teachers lead students in the recitation of the Pledge in class. Newdow told WND he objects to his daughter being subjected to "dogma" by the government.
In his complaint, Newdow argued the government's use of the words "under God" infringes upon his right as a parent to "inculcate in his daughter ... the atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive."
Court records show Banning and Newdow, who never married, have been embroiled in a custody battle since 1999. Having been awarded sole legal custody in February, Banning asserts Newdow does not have legal standing to sue on behalf of the girl.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Banning also seeks to clarify the case record, emphasizing both she and her daughter are practicing Christians. Banning said the 2nd-grader plans to whisper "under God" under her breath if the ruling stands.
"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words, 'one nation under God,'" Banning said in a statement released to members of Congress and obtained by WND.
Newdow told WND the legal standing issue has yet to be worked out by the 9th circuit. In his complaint, he argued that he has legal standing because the Pledge directly affects him, and also because he pays tax dollars to the government to fund the public school his daughter attends.
"I think I still have standing as a parent," Newdow told WND. "I had legal standing and it was only recently taken away," he added pointing out he still maintains physical custody of the child.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Newdow's favor in June, stating the phrase "under God" amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Amid thunderous reaction from President Bush on down, the court swiftly stayed its opinion, allowing time for appeals before enforcement of the ruling in the nine Western states covered by the court begins.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Gov. Gray Davis have appealed, arguing the Pledge is not a prayer or expression of religion but "a vocal expression of patriotism and duty" and the phrase "one nation under God" is a "constitutionally acceptable expression of this country's religious heritage."
The state appeal also echoes Banning's argument that Newdow doesn't have proper legal standing to file on behalf of his daughter.
The Elk Grove school district has similarly appealed and the federal government plans to follow suit.
Several "friend-of-the-court" briefs have also been filed petitioning the court for an en banc – or full court – rehearing. Petitioners include the United States Justice Foundation, the American Legion and the National Association of Attorneys General, which called the decision legally flawed.
"The reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance is no different than the references in the Declaration of Independence, God Bless America or the money in your pocket," maintains South Dakota Attorney General Mark Barnett.
Newdow remains unfazed by the flurry of appeals.
"What this is all about is the religious right is afraid of losing their god. That's what this is all about," he told WND, confident he will ultimately prevail.
"I'll find other litigants in the other 10 circuits and I'll get back to where [the case] was. It'll take a couple more years but I'm sure we'll win in a number of circuits because the Pledge violates the constitution," said Newdow.
No doubt NOW will rush to the defense of this wronged woman and her daughter. No?
Well at least the media will expose the deceipt of this leftwing atheist for all to see. No?
Well at least.......
The guy still doesn't get it.
The last thing those of God are worried about is losing Him. The more immediate problem is having the most ignorant attempt to force their folly upon others and to have equally inane injustices casting their lots in agreement with such foolish nonsense.
Newdoubt and the injustices are no doubt, losers in dire need of intercessory prayer....
If that's true, then the Constitution itself violates the Constitution:
"...in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."Obviously, this final sentence of the Constitution makes a brazenly unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity and therefore the whole Constitution should be thrown out for violating the establishment clause of the first amendment.
He was on TV this morning and he basically admitted he concocted the "injury" to his daughter in order to further his own antireligious political agenda. If he did so, he at the very least initiated a frivilous lawsuit. The court doesn't like to have it's time wasted on those, which is why they will not even hear a speculative case, there has to be an actual injury that it is seeking to redress.
I understand that this Newdow is a very bright guy, both a doctor and and lawyer. He should have known better. He may be in for some form of discipline for this fraud.
I mean, the man only lied twice, in his petition to have the words removed (in that HE wanted it, and not his daughter, as he has admitted), and in his claim to be an atheist (he is, in fact, a practicing Jew).
It goes without saying, then, this ruling should, and shall, be thrown out.
Ms. Banning's petition will just make things that much easier, assuming the ACLU does not decide to stick its nose where it does not belong.
"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'."
I understand that this Newdow is a very bright guy, both a doctor and and lawyer. He should have known better. He may be in for some form of discipline for this fraud.
I think you misunderstood.
I heard Newdow on Hannity's radio show yesterday, and while I don't agree with Newdow, he made it clear that he felt his daugther was being injured, and that she didn't feel she was being injured or was oblivious to it.
It's not an unreasonable position. The kid is eight years old. I think that if we change a couple of the details of the case that most everyone, including Hannity, would agree with the father. Consider: The school directs its teachers to instruct students that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. The mother, being a Democrat,has no problem with this. The father goes into court to ask them to stop this indoctrination of his daughter.
ML/NJ
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.