PDA

View Full Version : The Legality of Forcing Kids to ...


Crossbow
28th February 2003, 10:29 AM
Full Title: The Legality of Forcing Kids to Salute the Flag, Recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and Hold 2 Minutes of Silence

Anyway, as many of you may be aware, one of the newest JREF Members, Jedi Knight recently stated:

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All children in schools, even in colleges, should mandatorily salute the American flag and conduct the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag every morning.

Now for the reasons why it is the correct thing to do.

Leftists will tell all Americans that they should pay taxes for their social agendas because "America" provides the "venue" to make money. It is the "state" that provides the "stability" for "the people" to make money.

Well, using that logic, all children should salute the flag at 5:45 AM every morning for two minutes in silence, and then say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag right after in perfect, undistracted and disciplined unison.

Why? Well the "state", using "tax-payer money" is providing those children the "stable venue" to go to school so they can be adults and then "pay taxes" for the social leftist programs that leftists say the "state" provides "stability" for.

That is why. Not to do it is hypocritical. The only exemptions should be institutions of learning that receive no US tax-payer money.

JK

Originally, my main problem was his posting was what is one to do with children that will not properly recite the pledge, give a bad salute, refuse to do it, and so on? JK never did give a good answer to this question and so I thought, "Oh well! That is that.".

However, in the thread he started I noticed a few people debating the legality of such a law, and it got me thinking that they are right because my concerns are moot! If a law was actually passed that fitted his outline, then it would soon be struck down by the courts since the law did not have anything to do with interstate commerce. Essentially, every law that is passed at the federal level is supposed to tie into interstate commerce in some way, and if it does not, then the law does not pass legal muster and is tossed out.

I think there was a case a few years ago involving this point where the US Congress passed a law concerning firearms near schools. The courts threw out the law since it had anything to do with interstate commerce. Sorry, it has been a while and I cannot remember the specifics.

In any event, I just wanted to point out this fact and I would welcome any comments.

Thanks much!

In the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8), the authorization for Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."

rikzilla
28th February 2003, 10:51 AM
Two words: "corporal punishment" ;)

Saturn
28th February 2003, 10:51 AM
As a lawyer, let me explain this. In West Virginia v. Barnette, decided in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that children cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance or any other oath. The case involved certain Jehova's Witnesses whose religion forbade them to say the pledge. Incidentally, this was before the "under God" phrase was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The basis of the ruling was that forcing the students to say the pledge violated their free speech rights, not based upon freedom of religion or the commerce clause. I can't see that the Supreme Court would overrule this holding now.

As for the commerce clause, the usual way to get around it is to construct the law to require that schools either abide by the federal government's guidelines or forego federal education funding. So long as there's even a tenuous relationship between the federal government's goals and the funding, courts will go along with that.

Crossbow
28th February 2003, 11:34 AM
rickzilla, would you please explain how does use of corporal punishment on children to force them to do something that is illegal actually make that thing legal?

rikzilla
28th February 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Crossbow
rickzilla, would you please explain how does use of corporal punishment on children to force them to do something that is illegal actually make that thing legal?

I'd rather explain to you the value of satire in a thread started by a guy who takes himself way too seriously.

But I think it might go over your head. :p

-z

Blue Monk
28th February 2003, 12:12 PM
I think a forced pledge is stupid.

Who wants to live in a country that has to force its citizenry to take an oath?

This is the land of the FREE!

The strongest statement of this fact is when the good citizens of this country stand up and pledge allegiance because they love their country not because some government requires it of them. You can bet your *ss that under Stalin EVERYONE took any damn oath required of them.

Can everyone not see how meaningless any oath or pledge to loyalty is when it is forced or required. Then it means nothing.

One of the strongest symbolic gesture this country routinely performs is when it’s citizens all rise together to pledge allegiance but it’s strength comes from the fact that they do it out of true love for their country and not at the point of a sword. They do it because they believe it. If an oath of loyalty is required then the concept of a free state becomes a mockery.

Also never underestimate the symbolic power of a country that is free enough and secure and confident enough to tolerate those who choose not to participate.

Somewhere along the way these right-wingers are just going to have to learn that freedom means that for them to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit they are just going to have to learn that others are entitled to that same right and that being a US citizens means you can voice your discontent with government policy in any peaceful manner you choose.

I would rather our children be taught about freedom and what makes this country great and that the pledge of allegiance is an opportunity for them to freely express that love if they choose. If others are offended by opposing viewpoints then perhaps a free society is not for them.

Crossbow
28th February 2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by rikzilla


I'd rather explain to you the value of satire in a thread started by a guy who takes himself way too seriously.

But I think it might go over your head. :p

-z

True rickzilla!

I have about the worst sense of humor in the world.