You may remember Michael Newdow, who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional a few years ago. He found success in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002, which reversed a California federal court's dismissal of the case (after a federal court in Florida in 1998 dismissed his case because his daughter [now a Christian] was not yet old enough to attend public school). The United States Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the case because he lacked standing to bring the suit on behalf of his daughter, of whom he did not have custody.
A federal judge in San Franciso has ruled today that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional for its inclusion of the phrase "under God." It appears that the plaintiffs in this case are represented by Michael Newdow. By representing children other than his own, he appears to have solved his standing problem. The judge ruled according to the existing 9th Circuit precedent, notwithstanding that Newdow's 2002 case was eventually tossed.
The U.S. Supreme Court will now undoubtedly be forced to address this issue, as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals came to a different conclusion this summer, since one of the Court's roles is to resolve conflicts in law between circuits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There may a slight technicality on this case as well. "Under God" was unanimously voted into he pledge by Congress in the '50s. The First Amendment clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
However, it can be interpreted that that the phrase "Under God" does not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The term "God" is used by all religions. It does not esatblish a single religion just because "God" is place in it. Most Americans believe in "God" or a divine spirit that controls fate. you can do that and not be religious.
To me, the orginal intent of the framers, who ratified the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights", was to create a government where a specific religion was forced on you. They were potecting themselves against Theocracies. The phrase "Under God" does not create a theocracy, nor does it prohibit anyone from practicing any religion they choose. Every founding father, every president, every Supreme Court Justice, everyone who ever had any political prominence in America believes that we were, we are, and we will always be "One nation under God".
My Prediction: The Supreme Court will rule against Michael Newdow in a split decision, either 6-3 or 7-2
Chief Justice Roberts will deliver the opinion while Ginsburg or Breyer (or both) writing the dissent
Post a Comment