Addams
You Bet Your ASS Team
ForumsNet Member
Gender: 
Posts: 5398
|
 |
US Supreme Court unanimous on Pledge decision
« on: Jun 14th, 2004, 4:00pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Following and other stories can be found at cnn.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
The 8-0 ruling by the high court reversed a lower-court decision that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
The case had been brought by an atheist who did not want his third-grade daughter to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in the oath.
Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.
In separate, concurring opinions, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas argued the court should have addressed the constitutional issue.
The justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.
"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote.
At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.
The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full Pledge of Allegiance will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.
Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees, argued his own case before the high-court justices in March. (March arguments before Supreme Court)
Newdow never married the mother of the child and the two are in a battle over his parental rights.
The mother, Sandra Banning, has said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the full pledge and argued that Newdow had no right to bring the case.
Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Pledge serves as a prayer in addition to a patriotic oath.
Newdow sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County, California, which his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violated her religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, Newdow said it becomes unconstitutional when students are forced to hear it. He argued that the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval.
Labeling the Pledge of Allegiance a "unifying patriotic exercise," district Superintendent Dave Gordon expressed delighted with the ruling.
"We're grateful that our students and students throughout the country will continue to be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God,' as has been the law of our land for 50 years," he said.
Gordon expressed disappointment that the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the pledge.
Newdow had declared that his daughter would be singled out if she chose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and would be coerced to participate.
"Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child," he said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."
|
Sponsored by: The Fans!
Home
Help
Search
Members
Chat
Member Map
Login
Register
Reply
Add Poll
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print