Supreme Court Upholds "Under God" in Pledge

[Brown]

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled early today that it is constitutionally permissible to include the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and that local school districts may compel students to utter those words, even if the students have parents who are atheists.

The Court's decision was splintered, however, with a majority of the eight Justices unable to agree on a rationale.

A plurality formed by Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy based their opinion on largely historical grounds.It is beyond dispute that the principal founders of this Nation were religious men. History does not record any founder who denied the existence of the Supreme Being. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that religious motivations were the primary impetus behind the founding of this Nation. Issues such as taxes, right to trial by jury, mismanagement of colonial affairs and capricious action by the Crown were of secondary importance. The very reason for the existence of the United States is that a group of religious men desired to establish a Nation under God. It would be strange, therefore, to strike from the Pledge those words that so accurately describe the reason for this country’s existence.
…
Newdow protests that, as an atheist who does not believe in a Supreme Being, his beliefs are attacked by the words “under God” in the officially sanctioned Pledge. This protest is without merit. Firstly, Newdow’s belief has no bearing upon God’s existence. God exists whether Newdow believes it or not. Second, Newdow is still at liberty to believe as he wishes, as long as he keeps his views to himself out of respect for the views of the majority of Americans.Another plurality, formed by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, took an entirely different view, adopting the position urged by the United States Solicitor General.The use of the words “under God” in the Pledge falls far short of Constitutional infirmity. This Court has often recognized that the name of the Almighty may be invoked in a variety of governmental contexts without creating Constitutional difficulty. It is well recognized that, in such contexts, the name of God is without any religious significance. The words “under God” are included in the Pledge for no function other than ceremonial purposes.
…
The Pledge is not a prayer. It is an expression of patriotism. There is no Constitutional difficulty associated with urging schoolchildren to utter it. Similarly, there would be no Constitutional difficulty associated with educating children about the patriotic duties imposed upon them by the Almighty, as long as such education did not include praying. Moreover, there would be no Constitutional hurdle to requiring students to sing a patriotic anthem such as “God Bless America” before beginning each day’s studies.In another opinion, Justices Thomas and Souter took a third approach:The First Amendment is unconstitutional.

For the past twenty years, this Court has expanded the role of government as it pertains to religious expression, and has curtailed the rights of the people. The government has been permitted more and more latitude to tell citizens what to believe, how to believe, when to worship, and what to say when worshipping. Instead of pretending that that First Amendment guards religious liberty and forbids the establishment of religion, we should simply strike down the Amendment and be done with it.Read more here. (http://www.snopes.com/holidays/april/pranks.asp)

[crimresearch]

Hmmm... let me save this along with the journalistic claims of the massacre at Jenin, the landslide victory by Al Gore in the 2000 election, the conviction of OJ for murder, and the crushing defeat of American forces at the hands of Saddam's Republican Guard.

When I get enough of them, I'll have them bound, and put them up on my bookshelf next to 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Chinese Criminal Justice System' 'Snakes of Ireland' and 'The FBI's Successful Cases'.


Paul

[Suddenly]

You missed the best part of the Thomas/Souter opinion:

While the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, it says nothing of freedom from religion. Athiests should not suppose that their beliefs are to be forced on Americans, given that Athiesm is not protected by our constitution and can be rightly banned by mere statute.

Athiests have no rights that the religious American is bound to respect.

[Zep]

I take it that the rest of the Pledge is not in dispute, atheist or believer notwithstanding. So can I suggest that if atheists do not like those words in the pledge, then simply do not say them whenever you are reciting it. Eventually there will be enough people leaving a second or two pause in the recitation that will make a point without offending the noisy few.

[WildCat]

Finally the children of America will be free to teach the light, the way to eternal salvation through the lord Jesus Christ in public schools.

This is a truly great and groundbreaking opinion that is long overdue.

[Regnad Kcin]

Brown, you scamp!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Zep
I take it that the rest of the Pledge is not in dispute, atheist or believer notwithstanding. So can I suggest that if atheists do not like those words in the pledge, then simply do not say them whenever you are reciting it. Eventually there will be enough people leaving a second or two pause in the recitation that will make a point without offending the noisy few.

Except for another little bit Brown missed in the Stevens/Ginsburg/Breyer opinion:

We would go so far to say that a school policy or even state law criminalizing the failure to say the pledge including "Under God" would be a reasonable use of the state's police powers. In these days of terrorism the state has a legitimate interest in currying favor with God, and requiring residents to simply utter not a prayer, but two small words, is such a small burden that the individual's First Amendment interest is far outweighed by the state's interest in the safety of it's residents.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Except for another little bit Brown missed in the Stevens/Ginsburg/Breyer opinion:



Better yet! Now they can be conciencious objectors and go to jail for it! We shall overcome....

When they arrest somebody for it, be sure to let me know. :D

[NoZed Avenger]

Like the Supreme Court would -ever- manage to put out a decision in less than 3 months.

[Brown]

Justice Scalia did not participate in this decision, as he had recently gone duck hunting with Dr. Newdow and did not think that it would be appropriate to hear a case involving a hunting companion who shared his duck blind and his beer. Justice Scalia did, however, offer the following remarks to a reporter:I understand that, ever since the Ninth Circuit's decision, people have been saying the Pledge and screaming the words "under God." "One, Nation, UNDER GOD!!" Just like that. And really, that is how the Pledge really ought to be recited: with vigor, with fervor, and screaming the name of the Sovereign of the Universe at the top of your lungs. You can't get more dignified or patriotic than that.

Hey, is that tape recorder on? I told you, this discussion is off the record. Seriously, is that tape recorder on?

[Theodore Kurita]

This is a sad day for everyone that is for the Separation of Church and State.

I am still wondering why the justices are pandering so much to the religious right.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
This is a sad day for everyone that is for the Separation of Church and State.

I am still wondering why the justices are pandering so much to the religious right.

Only sad for you commie loving liberal types that HATE GOD and make the baby Jesus cry. Perhaps you should click on Brown's link and perhaps then you will see true legal and moral genius at work and you will stop being such a whimpy lefty whineybutt.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Only sad for you commie loving liberal types that HATE GOD and make the baby Jesus cry. Perhaps you should click on Brown's link and perhaps then you will see true legal and moral genius at work and you will stop being such a whimpy lefty whineybutt.

Ok, I fell for an April Fool's Joke.

hardy har har.



Note to self: Don't take anything seriously on April 1st or the day before ever again...

[RPG Advocate]

PRAISE JESUS! (http://www.snopes.com/holidays/april/pranks.asp)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Ok, I fell for an April Fool's Joke.

hardy har har.



Note to self: Don't take anything seriously on April 1st or the day before ever again...

Doubly dangerous on a global forum where some people get April Fool's day a full 24 hours of others!

[toddjh]

Jesus, Brown, don't do that to me. It's still the 31st here!

Jeremy

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You missed the best part of the Thomas/Souter opinion:



Could you post a link please???? ;)

[Kopji]

Yeah, I heard that April Fools Day was an atheist holiday now. :D

[Zep]

I N..E..A..R..L..Y fell for it!

[mummymonkey]

I have to admit I got as far as "God exists whether Newdow believes it or not" before the alarm bells went off.

[renata]

Brilliant! Can I forward it to some people? What kind of credit should I give?

[Kodiak]

A-hole!!! :mad:

I almost loaded every weapon in the house waiting for the call of revolution!

Jerk! :mad:


























.















.







good one! ;) :D

[Lurker]

My jaw was dropping as I read this. I was amazed a decision had come out so soon but horrified by the result.

I went all the way to where Suddenly started talking about criminilizing those who don't say, "Under God" and then I woke up.

Well done. You got me.

Lurker

[Marc]

well :p

Been some good pranks going on it seems. Howard Stern had a phony anouncement read by his general manager saying the show had been taken off of the air, and a phony show done in it's place for over an hour. A lot of people were taken in with that one.

[Brown]

Just in case anyone took this story seriously, you should know that it's a fake.

The Supreme Court typically takes months after oral argument to hand down a decision in a case. Because this case was argued just a few days ago, a decision on the merits handed down so quickly would be a real shocker. We can look for an actual decision in June.

My goal was to start the story in a plausible fashion, then pile on the absurdities. I was pretty sure that anybody who read "The First Amendment is unconstitutional" would realize that I was kidding. (The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, of course, and therefore cannot be unconstitutional.) But just in case, I included a link to an information site about April Fool jokes.

Some of the post was somewhat serious. For example, it seems to me to be a reasonable possibility that, if "under God" is allowed to remain, it might be permissible to urge school kids to sing "God Bless America" (and I wouldn't put it past some people to put pressure on public schools to do just that).

It also can happen that the Supreme Court agrees on a decision but a majority of the Court cannot agree on a rationale. In that case, the Court announces its "judgment of the Court," and the lawyers are left to puzzle over what precedents have been set. (When a majority of the Court agrees on a rationale, the Court announces its "opinion of the Court").

If this little fake story caused anyone to have a conniption or lose bowel control, then all I can say is, "April fool, ha, ha, got you!"

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Brown
(The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, of course, and therefore cannot be unconstitutional.)

I've often wondered about this. This is purely hypothetical of course, but would it be possible for the Supreme Court to rule that part of the Constitution itself was unconstitutional (e.g. self-contradictory)? Suppose there was a new amendment whose wording was poorly chosen, or something like that. Could that be "struck down?"

Similarly, could a Constitutional amendment be held to be "unconstitutionally vague?"

Jeremy

[Brown]

Originally posted by toddjh
I've often wondered about this. This is purely hypothetical of course, but would it be possible for the Supreme Court to rule that part of the Constitution itself was unconstitutional (e.g. self-contradictory)? Suppose there was a new amendment whose wording was poorly chosen, or something like that. Could that be "struck down?"

Similarly, could a Constitutional amendment be held to be "unconstitutionally vague?"Great question, and a hard one to answer.

In theory, what's in the Constitution is the law of the land. The Court has determined that it has the power to hold statutes unconstitutional, but it can't declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

If there is a conflict between Constitutional provisions, there are a lot of ways the Court could resolve it. For example, the Court might look to the rationales for the respective provisions, or give the more specific provision force over the general provision, or treat one provision as an exception to the other.

To illustrate: Some people have been talking about an amendment to prohibit flag burning. Now, that amendment is not a very good idea for a lot of reasons, but suppose it got adopted. The Court might say that First Amendment rights are all still valid, just like they were before, except in the isolated case of flag desecration. But the Court could not strike down the flag burning amendment as unconstitutional.