posted June 26, 2002 08:14 PM            

Im sure everyone has heard that the San Francisco Supreme Court ruled today that the "under God" piece of the Allegiance is unconstitutional.

That is going to totally throw me off. I get kinda that rhythm going. by the end of the tune, im just ready to play ball.

So, should it stay or should be just be "One nation, Indivisible"?

How about "And to the republic for which it stands, One Nation Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna!" No more god and its good and catchy. Throw all our gusto into the last Krishna.

I personally dont think that whether it is in or out is a big deal. Is it a big deal? Does it trully break Consitituional Law? (which doesnt really seem to mean much anyway bc everything single thing in there is either taken out completely or has so many red squiggly marks around it, original meaning is completely lost.)

If the Supreme Court does eventually decide to take out "Under God", does this mean we have to take out "In God We Trust" on our money and "So help me God" when we are being sworn in?

posted June 27, 2002 02:03 AM            

From what I understand, the decision is major because of the impact it "may" have in Constitutional Law and American jurisprudence, although the stand made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a pretty bold step in itself. The decision, if it stands, will obviously open a plethora of legal issues surrounding money, oaths, and songs like the "Start Spangled Banner," "God Bless America," and "America, the Beautiful" to name a few.

The fact that the decision "may" have a huge impact on how we view the separation of church and state doesn't mean that it will. When I talked to a law professor at Georgetown, he told me that the chances of the Supreme Court upholding the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is pretty slim. He said that Supreme Court could uphold the opinion, but he feels that it won't happen. In doing some research, I found that the legal theories of the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has often clashed. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned appellate court in the United States, not only because its hears cases in the country's largest appellate district but also because they have often challenged the status quo by taking liberal, activist stands. So, there is a very good chance that this decision will be overturned, provided that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't reverse its decision.

That probably won't happen. In reading some parts of the decision handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court has used several precedents established by the Supreme Court, citing its belief that no student should be reprimanded for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The opinion, I believe, also referred to the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in [italics]Lee v. Weisman[/italics], which declared prayers at high school graduations unconstitutional.

Does the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals constitute a separation of church and state?

The First Amendment’s declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" helped establish two important clauses pertaining to religion: The "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." In many instances, both clauses compliment each other and play a major role in protecting religious freedom. However, tension exists between both clauses as well. Government (local, state, and federal) actions intended to facilitate free exercise may be seen as attempts to establish religion, while any government attempt to establish religion can be seen as obstructing a citizen's right to free exercise.

The situation that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on dealt with an atheist, Michael A. Newdow, who felt that the words "under God" held a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." Consequently, Newdow, who is a JDMD, felt that the term "under God" prevented his daughter from freely exercising her religious rights. Legally, Newdow does have a legal leg to stand on, since the absolute nature of both religious clauses make it difficult to find a neutral course. Since the federal government included the term "under God" in 1954 as a way to separate the United States from those "godless communists," the term can be seen as a promotion of religion that can obstruct a citizen's right to free religious exercise.

Will the Supreme Court see it that way? Its hard to say. Overall, the Supreme Court's decisions pertaining to religion has waffled. The high court has stated that teachers can lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance, but students don't have to recite it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for schools to post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, even though it later ruled that Ohio's motto, "With God, all things are possible," is constitutional. Even with the waffling nature of the Supreme Court, I think it will overturn the decision made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justices who play a role in overturning the decision will probably point to the past opinion made by the court, which made reciting the Pledge of Allegiance a voluntary activity. In constructing their opinion, the Justices will say that, by giving students a choice in reciting the Pledge, the government is allowing them to freely exercise their religious rights. Of course, that's just my opinion. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

posted June 27, 2002 06:16 PM            

But lets not let that stop us from ranting. I know this decision doesnt effect us directly, but it is causing a few ripples in the court system, which is always fun to watch.

posted June 28, 2002 04:16 PM            

Religion, therefore, could be practiced freely, but was "exempt" in government according to Madison. The same could be said for government in trying to establish religion.

Where are the boundaries?

The Constitution does not literally use the phrase "separation of church and state," but only implies that a policy of church-state separation exists through the First Amendment. Moreover, the Constitution remains silent over what would consitute a violation of church-state separation. There are, therefore, no exact boundaries separating church and state, only gray areas. Consequently, lawyers and judges have to interpret such things as the Constitution, the intent of the Framers, and judicial precidents. The end result is a lot of varying opinions on where the boundary exists.

With regards to the Pledge of Allegiance, is the government trying to promote religion through the term "under God"? Some people will look at the exact context with which the term "under God" was inserted into the Pledge, and they will say yes (see my above post). On the other hand, other people can argue that the term "under God" is nothing more than "ceremonial deism," as the term has been repeated so often that the religious connotation has been lost.

Where is it ok and where does it offend people?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to ask here, so my answer might be off the mark. With regards to religion, the Constitution requires the government to honor two specific clauses: The "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." Sometimes both clauses work well together in protecting the individual's religious rights. However, as I said in my last post, tension exists in both clauses. Sometimes the government is damned if it does and damned if it does not. For example, the government can provide clergy for those members of the military who want to freely exercise their religious rights. However, someone can take the government to court, arguing that the government has violated the "establishment clause" of the Constitution. The same thing can happen if the government fails to provide members of the clergy, since the government is not facilitaing a citizen's right to free religious exercise.

There are so many intricacies involving Constitutional Law and religion that people have written journal articles and books on the topic. To be truthful, its difficult to say where its okay and where its offensive. Its subjective, and therefore up to interpretation. If the opinion handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is upheld, then constitutional questions regarding such things as currency, oaths, and songs will come in question. Does the saying "In God We Trust" promote religion, or prohibit citizens from their right to free religious exercise? The same question can be asked of "God Bless America," "God save the United States and this honorable court," and the prayer session that begins each session of Congress. Its ironic, but even though public schools are not allowed to teach religion, the Constitution allows for the establishment of after school Bible/Religious Clubs.

So, when does this offend people? I really think it depends on the individual if you want my honest opinon. In the case surrounding the Pledge, Newdow was obviously offended at the notion that his daughter had to use the phrase "under God" when reciting the Pledge. Newdow has also had a history of challenging the use of God in such things as the Pledge or currancy, and there are many more people in the United States who hold the same views as he does. Furthermore, as you can see by the result of Wednesday's decision, there are millions and millions of Americans appalled and offended by the very notion that two judges could declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God," even though one of those judges placed a stay on his opinion. Its really a matter of how we perceive things. As two people can look at the same issue differently, two people can also take offense to different things.

I hope I effectively answered your questions.

Richard

posted June 29, 2002 02:26 PM            

I would also like to say that people should concern themselves more with their own personal spirituality rather than relatively trite issues like this one. Although I think it’s great fun to chat & talk about it, it would make me sad if people get mad it when they can better spend that energy on something positive.

And while we're on the topic, am I the only one that feels that the "In God We Trust" should be taken off of all of our money???? It's along the same vein. Oh, one more point, I believe that, originally, the "under God" wasn't even in the Pledge. Food for thought.

everywhere lies within everyone,
Caitlin

posted June 29, 2002 03:41 PM            

As for Congress, every bill they pass does not become a constitutional question. While legislators do debate the constitutionality of possible bills, they do so either to support or oppose the passage of the bills in question. Legislators cannot spend all of their time wondering whether or not a specific bill is constitutional. Their job is to make laws, not interpret them. Likewise, when the courts hear a case, the justicies have to interpret the law(s) in order to reach a decision. Their opinions, thus, cannot make law.

In interpreting the Constitution, the only important thing is the make-up of the court. Citizens can develop their own opinions on whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional, but its ultimately the justices who decide. If you notice, the Pledge was declared unconstitutional in arguably the nation's most liberal court. The government is requesting to try the case before the 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but I say right now that the Supreme Court is ultimately going to hear the case. If the government loses, it will appeal to the Supreme Court for recourse. The same thing can be said for Michael Newdow if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses its decision. Yet, the important thing to note here is that the Supreme Court is much more conservative than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to set an important judicial precedent, not only regarding the Pledge but also over church-state separation. Whether it will be the right decision, that is a different question all together. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision will settle the dispute between the ficticious Person A and Person B. If "under God" is offensive to Person A, and the Supreme Court states that "under God" does not violate church-state separation, Person B wins obviously. Person A has nowhere else to go, since the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. For the foreseeable future, the issue is solved, as the courts will look at the Supreme Court's precedent and reject any lawsuit over the term "under God" or the use of God in oaths or money. I will not say that the issue is permanently solved because some precedents are overturned (i.e. "Jim Crow Laws"), but to overturn a Supreme Court precedent is difficult and usually takes a long time.

Finally, and yes this post is coming to an end at last, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin really should have stuck to his guns. Goodwin's actions look bad of course, but I do not think his career is completely gone unless he retires or dies on the bench (he's actually semi-retired). However, Goodwin's credibility is completely gone, especially now since he placed a stay on his opinion without any reason. President Bush can criticize Goodwin all he wants, but as long as Senate Democrats continue to block the President's court nominees, the President is not going to get his "common sense judges."

posted June 29, 2002 03:55 PM            

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to* the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

*"to" was added in by Bellamy in October 1892, two months after he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 1923/1924, the words to the Pledge were changed as a result of pressure coming from the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. The word "my Flag" was changed in favor of "the flag of the United States of America."

Here is the 1924 version, which Bellamy opposed by the way:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Thirty years later, in 1954, Congress included the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Communist pledges started to look similar to the one said in the United States, and people like the Knights of Columbus and President Dwight D. Eisenhower felt that "under God" would separate the United States from the "godless" Communists. Consequently, we have the Pledge of Allegiance that was declared unconstitutional on Wednesday.

For more information, check out this website:

www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

Richard

posted June 29, 2002 10:22 PM            

If you are a judge, in that your occupation is to make decisions based on ethics, and you lose credibility, then who is going to listen to your decisions if no one thinks your ethics are noteworthy?

posted June 30, 2002 03:34 AM            

I joke, actually admit I did not read all the posts, because hey either way it does not affect me, I have to say though I have to laugh at a country that brags about their freedoms, and the seperation between church and state, yet has in "God we Trust" on your money...How about in the "Financial Intitutions of America we foolishly trust"

posted June 30, 2002 08:44 AM            

Justice Goodwin's loss of credibility isn't good anyway you look at it, but its something that won't do any irrepairable damage to the court. Overall, Goodwin is only one of eleven judges that make up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and only one of three judges that heard Michael Newdow's case. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hands down another decision in a different case, Justice Goodwin will have another opinion written, whether its the majority or minority opinon (Note: Protocol has it that the most senior member, on the majority and minority side, is assigned to write the opinion). People can look at Goodwin's opinon and ignore what he says, but they can't ignore the decision of the court. Of course, if a specific party doesn't like the decison of the court, they can appeal, unless the decision was made by the Supreme Court.

Someone can ask, "Well, isn't the credibility of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in question since they're the most overturned appealate court in the country?" In my opinion, the answer is no. Two of the big reasons why the decisions of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are overturned are due to size and ideology. In the United States court system, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the largest appealate court, so by its scope of jurisdiction, the court is going to try more cases. By trying more cases, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has more opportunities to have their opinions reversed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, there is a conflict in ideology between the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals usually makes liberal, activist decisions, whereas the Supreme Court is a bit more conservative in its interpretation of the Constitution. With any conflict in ideology, the result will be a conflict of opinion, but since the Supreme Court is the higher court, they can overturn the decisions of the lower courts.

Regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Bellamy protested the first change, believing that his pledge could be said by children in other countries. From what I understand, Bellamy was an internationalist, and he didn't want any changes that would specify any nation's flag. This information isn't on the website I provided, but in an article I read from my local newspaper, The Capital, last week. Unfortunately, I don't have the article with me, nor do I have an account to look at the paper's archives. Its there though, under the title, "Expert: Pledge Due For Change." I will, though, go to my local library, where they have an account, get the article, and provide some quotes to answer the question more thoroughly.

Quite frankly, the Pledge isn't the Pledge unless it has that "to" in there.

posted June 30, 2002 09:22 PM            

I know you were teasing, Mari. With the sarcasim, I'll just take your word for it. You know what happens to people who assume.

I'm not a D.C. lawyer, but I do want to become a lawyer in the near future. Right now, I just received my Bachelor's Degree a month ago from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. I work at Georgetown Law School right now in the Internation and Graduate Programs Office, but I'm up for a position as Program Assistant in the Continuing Legal Education Office. In the fall, I'll be applying to several law schools for the 2003-2004 school year.

I won't say that I'm an unbeatable king of Trivial Pursuit. To me, I know my fair share of information, but I'm not a know it all. If I were, I would've won the $60 million Big Game lottery that took place not too long ago. I do a little research before I post, but only in instances where I want to verify what I think I know, add a little bit of detail to my posts, or both.

posted July 01, 2002 07:08 PM            

Well, here's the thing....even God didn't want church and state to be together. The Bible says that they should be separate so that one can't control the other.

However, I like the words in all this stuff. George Washington and friends would roll over in their graves if they knew that we were taking apart what they worked so hard to put together. The fact is that they were trying not to keep religion out of politics, but politics out of religion. And, this country was founded on the faith put in God and His power over us, and we have done very well as a country since then, I believe. I just think it's sad that we're fighting over something like this when it's not bothered anybody for so long.