Reciting Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Reprinted without the permission of ABCNews.com
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
Federal Judge in Calif. Declares Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Unconstitutional
By DAVID KRAVETS
The Associated Press
Sep. 14, 2005 - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Commentary: Only in California.

[rivercrazy]

Personally I don't care if the words undergod are in the Pledge. But technically it shouldn't be there - seperation of church and state. Church doesn't belong in the public school system funded by the government. Private schools are a whole different situation.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Personally I don't care if the words undergod are in the Pledge. But technically it shouldn't be there - seperation of church and state. Church doesn't belong in the public school system funded by the government. Private schools are a whole different situation.
I agree. Just amazing that someone takes the time to tie up the courts with this stuff.

[spectratoad]

This guy that keeps bringing these lawsuits is a tool.
Here locally I am not sure if the pledge is said or not allowed. I am going to find out though because I have noticed at several of our schools on Sunday that there are what I call, "Stripmall Churches" using the school facilities for their services. I see it as not ok to have religion in the schools unless they are paying then we can have the whole church in the school. I personally have a problem with that. :mad:

[atomickitn]

this is a crock o s**t, considering this country was based on the foundation of the bible and GOD, and that the , "one nation under god", was put into text for all who wish to be free... :devil:

[rivercrazy]

Totally agree. There are so many more pressing issues that should be faced. This is a waste of time.......

[HocusPocus]

Personally I don't care if the words undergod are in the Pledge. But technically it shouldn't be there - seperation of church and state. Church doesn't belong in the public school system funded by the government. Private schools are a whole different situation.
then they should remove "in god we trust" on all the money. :)

[rivercrazy]

this is a crock o s**t, considering this country was based on the foundation of the bible and GOD, and that the , "one nation under god", was put into text for all who wish to be free... :devil:
Sorry but that is just not true. This nation was formed under its structure to provide freedom from religion. And to provide freedom to beleive whatever suits you without persecution.

[rivercrazy]

then they should remove "in god we trust" on all the money. :)
Works for me! But again changing it is a total waste of time and resources.
Maybe our currency should read "in Bush we trust!"

[spectratoad]

I personally don't care whether "under God" is in there, on my money etc..... It is a waste of the courts time and no matter your belief, go for it.
Our country though was founded on Judeo-Christian belief and we shouldn't lose our identity to pacify all these others who choose to believe in a different way or come from other countries with their beliefs. That is a right if you are a CITIZEN of this country.
Technically there is no such thing as the "seperation of church and State". The Constitution only states.....
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[MagicMtnDan]

If you don't want to recite the pledge, you don't have to.
If you don't want to say, "under God" then you don't have to.

[SHAKEN Not Stirred]

Personally I don't care if the words undergod are in the Pledge. But technically it shouldn't be there - seperation of church and state. Church doesn't belong in the public school system funded by the government. Private schools are a whole different situation.
Well,
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.
The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc.
The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.
Later,
CJG
:wink:

[Liberator TJ1984]

Works for me! But again changing it is a total waste of time and resources.
Maybe our currency should read "in Bush we trust!"
In God we Trust ................all others pay Cash :D
Ya'll Think ???
maybe thats why Taxes are so High in California ???? all these bogus ,bullshit Lawsuits taxpayers foot the bill for that seem to pop up every other day that is F'n up the rest of this Country :mad:

[spectratoad]

Agreed, but in the order with which our laws and processes are established at their most basic levels is a result of religion. I think the bottom lineis that the Government cannot establish or require a "national religion". If you choose to have other beliefs than the ones the country is founded on then so be it, that is one of the rights of being a citizen of this country.
I think that is the bottom line. :D

[rivercrazy]

Very well stated SNS. Its legal precident and a long standing history of interpretation that has led to these accepted principals.

[spectratoad]

That and people with too much time on their hands. Take for example the family that didn't believe in Santa Claus so they sued to not allow one of the Christmas festivities happen in the town because they would be offended. Or how many nativity scenes have been disallowed for fear of offending someone????
Isn't there a loud call to prayer now being allowed in a large Muslim community in ?Detroit? even though it really bothers alot of the other residents because it is blasted on loudspeakers in all directions?
I lead my life they way I choose, celebrate the religion I choose and respect the way others go about their lives. If everyone else did that then maybe the courts could get on with the important stuff like Micheal Jackson and Robert Blake. :D

[SHAKEN Not Stirred]

With that said....
My kids to to a private Christian school and recite it each day......
No worries for me.......
No all we gotta' do is keep those biatch's out of the Boy Scouts....
Later,
CJG
:wink:

[rivercrazy]

This nation has become very intolerant and disrespectful of different opinions and beliefs. Respect goes a long way.........

[Jyruiz]

That and people with too much time on their hands. Take for example the family that didn't believe in Santa Claus so they sued to not allow one of the Christmas festivities happen in the town because they would be offended. Or how many nativity scenes have been disallowed for fear of offending someone????
No shit! People should just mind there own business.

[spectratoad]

With that said....
My kids to to a private Christian school and recite it each day......
No worries for me.......
No all we gotta' do is keep those biatch's out of the Boy Scouts....
Later,
CJG
:wink:
So do mine and they wear uniforms in school. :D Pledge of alliegence and prayer before school each day.

[SHAKEN Not Stirred]

Here ya' go......
http://www.spiritisup.com/pledgeofallegiance.html
Give a listen.....
Later,
CJG
:wink:

[SHAKEN Not Stirred]

So do mine and they wear uniforms in school. :D Pledge of alliegence and prayer before school each day.
Yep!!!
I love the uniform part.....
Let's leave the indivduality to character & ability.....
NOT to appearance......
CJG
:cool:

[***boateditor]

I think that is the bottom line.
You are wrong, sir.
THIS is the bottom line:
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/500/2898bottomline-med.jpg

[rivercrazy]

Hey wait a minute. Your a editor of a media pubilcation. Your not supposed to express you opinions - just facts! Ooops - not in today's media! :D:D

[***boateditor]

Hey wait a minute. Your a editor of a media pubilcation. Your not supposed to express you opinions - just facts! Ooops - not in today's media! :D:D
OK, let's just stick to the facts.
It's you're an editor, not "your a editor."
It's spelled publication (not pubilcation).
It's You're not supposed to express your opinions.
Anyway, what gave you the idea that the media isn't supposed to express opinions? The same place where you learned that this country was founded on the basis of religion? I'm just asking.

[rivercrazy]

I never said this nation wasn't founded based on religious "principals". Those same principals, are by coincidence, necessary for large groups of people to live in an orgainized society.
Sorry for my very poor spelling and grammer errors. Its just the internet so I don't pay much attention. Are we going to start grading here? :D:D
IMHO ***boat has lots of factual information. But also lots of opinions driven by marketing! :D
BTW - I've been a subscriber for years and enjoy the magazine.

[Jordy]

I never said this nation wasn't founded based on religious "principals". Those same principals, are by coincidence, necessary for large groups of people to live in an orgainized society.
I believe you meant "principles" as a "principal" is the person who runs the local school. Just remember that he's your princi-PAL (although mine all hated me, ironic huh?). :D :D :D
BTW - I've been a subscriber for years and enjoy the magazine.
Kiss ass. You're not getting a free t-shirt out of it though. :D :D :D
Fkn' bankers. :D

[SHAKEN Not Stirred]

Sorry for my very poor spelling and grammer errors. Its just the internet so I don't pay much attention. Are we going to start grading here? :D:D
YES!!
C-
Spelling and Grammer DO matter.....
That's what separates us from other mammals.....
Well......that and the use of FIRE!......
Oh......and our THUMBS !!!!....
Oh...and.....Never mind !!!!
Plus......Don't be a KISS-ASS!!!!!........ ;)
Later,
CJG
:wink:

[rivercrazy]

LOL! Good catch Jody - I mean Jordy! Do you wear eyeglasses that look like an airfilter?
There ain't no such thing as free! Not even a ***boat t-shirt! And don't take my statement out of context! I was being nice after basically saying that opinions and marketing are highly related to some of the magazine's content!

[Jordy]

And don't take my statement out of context! I was being nice after basically saying that opinions and marketing are highly related to some of the magazine's content!
So you were kissing ass???? :D :D :D :D

[rivercrazy]

Still want to receive my mag's in the mail. Even if they are late from time to time!

[***boateditor]

There ain't no such thing as free! Not even a ***boat t-shirt!
What a bunch of crap. To prove you wrong, I am going to send a FREE Hot Boat T-shirt to the person who posts immediately after this message in this thread. No questions asked!

[Jordy]

What a bunch of crap. To prove you wrong, I am going to send a FREE Hot Boat T-shirt to the person who posts immediately after this message in this thread. No questions asked!
I've already got one (just this year) but I'll take an XL please. :D

[***boateditor]

I've already got one (just this year) but I'll take an XL please. :D
How about a jacket instead?
Brett

[Jordy]

How about a jacket instead?
Brett
Works for me. Thanks Brett. Again, I'm sorry I'm not making it to Elsinore tomorrow. :(

[***boateditor]

Works for me. Thanks Brett. Again, I'm sorry I'm not making it to Elsinore tomorrow. :(
No problemo. PM me the shipping address and I'll send you a TOTALLY FREE, specially embroidered Hot Boat XL jacket!

[rivercrazy]

I've already got one (just this year) but I'll take an XL please. :D
What a kiss ass! Brett send him a smoking jacket......:D

[***boateditor]

Sorry for my very poor spelling and grammer errors.
Hahahaha! As I say...sometimes satire just writes itself.

[rivercrazy]

Jeez. OK teacher - I'll pay more attention! But a few mispelled words doesn't materially change the content of those posts!
Make sure Jordy's jacket also has a healthy amount of pink color on it! That color is consistent with her personality! :D:D:D

[Jordy]

Make sure Jordy's jacket also has a healthy amount of pink color on it! That color is consistent with her personality! :D:D:D
Hey now, it takes a real man to pull off wearing pink. Works for me. ;)

[HM]

Anyway, what gave you the idea that the media isn't supposed to express opinions? The same place where you learned that this country was founded on the basis of religion? I'm just asking.
He probably got that idea from the same place where you would expect an article to be in color when talking about color coatings or referring to a graph and that has a legend of what the different colors mean. :crossx:

[***boateditor]

But a few mispelled words doesn't materially change the content of those posts!
Whatever you say, pal. But don't forget the story of the guy who posted that his wife saw a sad movie and balled all weekend.

[spectratoad]

You are wrong, sir.
THIS is the bottom line:
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/500/2898bottomline-med.jpg
It is a better bottom line than what I was talking about. Can we expand on that subject? :D

[***boateditor]

It is a better bottom line than what I was talking about. Can we expand on that subject? :D
I do have many more of this particular subject, but they're NC-17. That was a fun day. :D

[spectratoad]

:D :D :D :D Yeah my mom would get mad if I looked at anything like that.... :D :D :D

[Kachina26]

This nation was formed under its structure to provide freedom from religion.
And to think, I always thought I was guaranteed freedom of religion :confused:

[Ralph Brunt]

i grew up saying one nation under god as many of you have, it did'nt kill me, we live in the USA, now i have my own beliefs or lack there of. my choice not the gov. on the back of all paper us currency in god we trust (correct me if im wrong) are we going to reprint it??? my daughter prays in school do i agree well no but if she does'nt learn in school were will she learn it. she has a choice to make as i and many others has or has not made. its America you can believe what you want. so for me i guess it's all about the choice to say if i want to or not GOD I LOVE THE USA.

[rivercrazy]

And to think, I always thought I was guaranteed freedom of religion :confused:
Your pulling my sentence from that paragraph and misunderstanding it. What I meant is our political system and government are not based on religion. And personal freedom's are just that. Your free to believe in whatever you wish. That's the way it should be.

[Kachina26]

Your pulling my sentence from that paragraph and misunderstanding it. What I meant is our political system and government are not based on religion. And personal freedom's are just that. Your free to believe in whatever you wish. That's the way it should be.
No, I'm pretty sure that you meant what you said about freedom from religion. Which is pretty much what this fella is seeking with his lawsuit. He wants no mention of religion. Being from so Cal, I would think that you would know that this whole area was based on religion at it's early stages. Or, are you unfamiliar with the missions throughout the area? ie San Diego, San Bernardino etc......
Oh, and talking about what the country was founded on,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,....
Notice the word "Creator" is capitalized? That was in reference to God. So to say that religion was absent during the founding of the country is insane.

[rivercrazy]

No, I'm pretty sure that you meant what you said about freedom from religion. Which is pretty much what this fella is seeking with his lawsuit. He wants no mention of religion. Being from so Cal, I would think that you would know that this whole area was based on religion at it's early stages. Or, are you unfamiliar with the missions throughout the area? ie San Diego, San Bernardino etc......
Oh, and talking about what the country was founded on,
Notice the word "Creator" is capitalized? That was in reference to God. So to say that religion was absent during the founding of the country is insane.
Interesting that you think you know what is going on inside my head. But you really don't. You don't even know me or what I believe in. To judge me without that knowledge reflects your predisposition of intolerance based on your own beliefs.
Again your twisting what I was saying. To make it perfectly clear once AGAIN - our government and political system is not based on religion. There is a clear segretation of church and state. This is the basis of freedom. Freedom to believe, think, learn, and live as each person best sees fit (within the confines of the law). Sure the is a substantial religious history that influences or ethical beliefs that manifests itself in our current laws. But our political system is not religious.
Perhaps you'd prefer a religious political system like the middle east? One that is lead by a Priest, Rabbi, Pope, or Cleric?

[Kachina26]

Interesting that you think you know what is going on inside my head. But you really don't. You don't even know me or what I believe in. To judge me without that knowledge reflects your predisposition of intolerance based on your own beliefs.
Nope, I don't know anything about you or what's going on in your head. I all have to go by is what I can derive from your choice of words. You chose "from" instead of "of" , not me. I don't think I twisted what you said, I merely quoted it. No, I don't want State religion. I never even came close to saying that. As far as intolerant, I'm far from that. All I'm saying is that those who desire freedom from religion in all public arenas, (I concede that you are not one of those people, you just chose your words poorly) have a tough row to hoe. That's all.

[rivercrazy]

I shall endevour to be more detail oriented with my use of the language going forward to minimize misunderstandings!
I respect where your coming from K26.
I personally think this whole thing is a complete waste of time and taxpayer resources. There are bigger issues to solve in our society.

[Kachina26]

I personally think this whole thing is a complete waste of time and taxpayer resources. There are bigger issues to solve in our society.
I agree with you there.