Another California judge has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
However, I detect one flaw in the argument made by the judge.
Since the Supreme Court tossed out the Newdow case on the standing issue, shouldn't that have vacated the entire set of rulings on the case, including the Ninth Circuit decision? Doesn't that mean that the ruling by the Ninth Circuit was nullified and of no effect? And wouldn't that mean that the decision of the Nith Circuit has no precedent value whatsoever?
Judge, you weren't bound by anything except your own predilections.
More at Michelle Malkin, Ankle Biting Pundits, How Appealing, California Conservative, Stop The ACLU, Deep Freeze, Double Toothpicks, and Jawa Report
 |
Trackback Information for Here We Go Again!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/115848Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Here We Go Again!'.
Comments on Here We Go Again!
From http://underthenews.blogspot.com ...
A federal judge in California has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the pledge’s reference to “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
OK, it's California, where a guy with a petition to repeal the suffrage of hamsters could get 10,000 signatures in 30 minutes. It's ironic that ours is a nation where burning the flag is defended as free speech, but kids saying "under God" should be gagged. But really, is this the most pressing issue before a nation at war, a nation rabbit-punched by a hurricane, and a nation with a big al Qaeda target painted on its back?
On one hand, if God intended to reward us for including him in our daily affirmations before class, He might go a little easier on the hurricanes. I mean, don't you think that admitting we're "one nation under God" should invite some tender mercies?
On the other hand, maybe He doesn't care what we force schoolkids to say out loud, and is more interested in how we conduct ourselves when nobody else is looking.
Who knows? The Lord hasn't really been keeping up his blog, so we're not sure what He's thinking. But I can tell you what I'm thinking: These attention-starved atheists are starting to be as annoying as megawatt televangelists.
|| Posted by Ron Franscell, September 14, 2005 04:29 PM ||Geez, I'm sorry we're starting to get 'annoying' tell you what, stop trying to force your religion on me and my family, and I'll stop fighting for my rights, ok?
Not everyone can fight Al Qaeda, and apparently that includes our government(where's Osama again?) so people fight injustices where they can, this certainly isn't the most pressing issue facing America today, but affects me personally, and I care VERY much how it turns out....
|| Posted by Fred Evil, September 15, 2005 12:13 PM ||Oh, do you Fred? Exactly how does it affect you? Do you feel "pressure?" "Unease?"
The fact is that NO ONE is forcing their religion on you. "Under God" in the Pledge doesn't since you're in no way required to say it. That was determined over 60 years ago by the SCOTUS. That phrase in no way "establishes a religion" by the federal government, and indeed it recognizes the belief in a higher authority -- a supreme being -- by those who founded the country. God, or the higher power, was invoked in the establishment of the US, like it or not. This makes it an historical fact, not a religious one.
And atheists and others who keep bringing "separation of church and state" cannot show where that phrase is in the Constitution of Declaration of Independence. Because it isn't there. The First Amendment was added to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion. Bottom line.
|| Posted by Hube, September 15, 2005 07:43 PM ||OR Declaration, that should read.....
|| Posted by Hube, September 15, 2005 07:44 PM ||Hey Fred,
When a kid recites the Pledge of Allegiance, what law has congress passed respecting the establishment of a religion (note that it does not say 'congress shall pass no laws respecting religion', it says '...a religion.'
*cough*
That means that religion is fine, but specific religions are not.
Bartleby
|| Posted by Bartleby, September 15, 2005 08:38 PM ||BTW - FYI...each state had their own state religion in the beginning.
Does that shock you? It doesn't shock me...the 'separation between church and state' is a recent construct that was never intended to be seen or assumed to be in the Constitution.
Bartleby
|| Posted by Bartleby, September 15, 2005 08:40 PM ||I'll tell you what -- you quit trying to force your religion of atheism on us by telling us that we cannot voluntarily recite the pledge in school -- for you atheist types already have the right not to say it. But you do not even want to hear a contrarypoint of view -- you want everyone else forced to silence lest your viewpoint be challenged. So much for pluralism.
As a teacher, I would daresay that this impacts my life more than it does yours.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 15, 2005 09:53 PM ||I daresay that you have it right RWR...forcing religion to be something that cannot be discussed makes it non-viable, which is athiesm.
The Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, just freedom of religion. Your religion isn't being changed or challenged if someone else speaks of theirs in front of you...so stop trying to make us follow your religion.
Bartleby
|| Posted by Bartleby, September 16, 2005 01:16 PM ||Hube-
"The First Amendment was added to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion."
Under the Fourteenth it also prevents state governments from establishing state religions. (In the same way that it prevents state police from searching your house without a warrant and state legislatures from banning all guns...)
Bartleby-
Not every original state had a religion -- it was about half. But those are long gone, and they'd be explicitly unconstitutional today.
|| Posted by Clint, September 19, 2005 12:36 PM ||This case is basically the Ninth Circuit telling the Supreme Court that it's going to keep sending them this case until it really rules on the substance.
Last time round, the Supreme Court dodged it and ruled (8-1) that the father had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit. Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the substance of this.
Strategically, this could hardly have come at a better time for us -- it practically guarantees that Justice O'Connor's replacement will be one notch more pro-religion than he or she could be if this case weren't in the headlines.
|| Posted by Clint, September 19, 2005 12:49 PM ||FOr hat it is worth, this isn't the ruling of hte Ninth Circuit -- it is the ruling of one judge who agreed with the Ninth Circuit and therefore chose to use as precedent an overturned decision.
And as for the selective incorporationist position uyou are advocating, if you read Clarence Thomas' opinions on the Establishment issue, he advocates for a much less restrictive position on state Establishment cases -- arguing that the EC is a procedural matter (and therefore not incorporated) provision rather than a fundamental rights issue (which would be).
Given the flaws of the last 75 years of Establishment jurisprudence, he may be on to something.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 19, 2005 06:03 PM ||Post a comment