See, MINTY, my problem is I don’t see the ceremonial deism or historical usage that saves (rightly IMO, as I know you know) IGWT, the prayer to open congress, and the use of The Big Guy’s Name as carved above the door in some old buildings. I know O’Connor swept the pledge in with her other examples of ceremonial deisim, but truthfully I think it’s tough to argue that it is one.
It’s not all that old. It’s not an integral part of the ceremonial nature of the pledge (as evinced by the fact that the pledge existed and worked perfectly fine without it). The intentional addition of the phrase (and just that phrase) cannot be considered anything other than a totally obvious injection of God in a place where He wasn’t initially. All the things that IMO save IGWT are missing from “under God.” My guess is they go with the Ninth Circuit. If not, it will be because they consider the right not to say it to be sufficient constitutional protection, and will not consider simply having to sit through it while others say it to be enough to constitute a violation. That’s the weak part of the argument, IMO – not that the phrase (or, rather, the congressional act adding the phrase) is unconstitutional, but that even voluntarily saying it does not pass constitutional muster because it infringes on the rights of those who choose not to say it but nevertheless have to hear it.
Hope I wasn’t being offensive, if so, I apologize. Perhaps an indicator of my ignorance, but I thought it was already a euphemism of sorts (not the true name). Hence a cultural equivalent of the English word God.
Of course the PoA isn’t unconstitutional. It’s reciting it in public schools that’s unconstitutional.
Exactly why this shouldn’t be allowed.
That argument really pisses me off. If it’s so unimportant, why are you so annoyed at having someone ask for it to be removed? It’s obviously important to him, so why is it that your opinion, which you don’t feel strongly about, is more important than his, which he does feel strongly about? It seems like the height of arrogance to say that a mild feeling of annoyance on your part trumps a strong feeling of injustice on another’s.
Oh of course not. It is a mitzvah on me, not you. I was trying to reinforce your point, that putting my beliefs on to you would be wrong, but since it applies only to Jews it is a bad example.
Am I the only person (other than the Chronicles Magazine/lewrockwell.com crowd) who thinks that the constitution should be interpreted to mean exactly what it says?
Recall the wording of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law…” It doesn’t say that government (at all levels) cannot “endorse” religion, nor that government must be “neutral” toward religion. It merely prohibits one specific governmental body–the legislative branch of the federal government–from making laws that establish a specific church or religion as the “official” one of the USA, or that prohibit people from practicing their religion.
If the first amendment was intended to mean that no governmental body in the country could ever speak or act in any way that could be interpreted as somehow connected with religion, then why did the Framers allow 7 of the 13 original states to have official state churches with ministers paid by state taxation? Why did they take their oaths with a hand on the Bible and conclude by saying “so help me God,” or why did they allow public prayers to open their sessions, or allow Congress to maintain a chaplain? All of this was going on when the men who drafted the constitution were still alive and in power, and they did nothing to stop it. Have we since discovered hidden meanings in the Constitution they didn’t know about?
I think it’s pretty clear that what the first amendment does is limit acts of Congress (the US congress, that is.) By that logic, Congress’s publishing a statement containing the words “under God” and calling it the Pledge of Allegiance is not unconstitutional, since the mere existence of that pledge does not establish a state religion. If Congress were to pass a law requiring people to speak the pledge, that could be construed as a violation of the first amendment.
As far as I know, that hasn’t happened. I’d imagine there are some schools that force students, under threat of disciplinary action, to say the Pledge, but again, unless those schools are agents of Congress, the first amendment doesn’t come into play. How is a rule drafted by a local school board an act of the US Congress? The Constitution doesn’t pretend to micromanage individual local school boards. (The modern behemoth imperial state, on the other hand…)
Of course, I don’t believe anyone should be required to say the Pledge anyway, and in fact I do NOT pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. But really, a pledge can’t be “unconstitutional” unless congress is forcing someone to speak it.
Wrong. The case holds that the 1954 act is itself unconstitutional. See Part D (Or is it part 4? I forget). The Cliffs Notes version is the final paragraph of the majority opinion, on page 27.
Arcite: The 14th Amendment means the 1st Amendment applies against the states. Been that way ever since, oh, the 1860s or so. Or is your argument that everything since the Civil War is unconstitutional?
This is the court that heard the case of Prop 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative. It seems ridiculous to imagine that the Consitution might be held unconstitutional. However, in the Prop 209 case, the plaintiffs argued that laws prohibiting racial discrimination actually required racial discrimination.
I made an unsuccessful effort to find out which members of the 9th Circuit agreed with that argument. It wouldn’t surprise me if that minority included the 2 judges who ruled against God in this case. However, that’s just a guess.
I do have a vague impression that the 9th circuit court is regarded as quite liberal…
I have heard of that idea, but I don’t see it in the 14th amendment. Are we talking about Section 1? That seems like the only one that could by any stretch apply to this situation.
How does this mean the 1st amendment applies against the states? If the 1st amendment said “The people shall have the right to free speech,” then maybe XIV could be taken to mean that a state law restricting certain speech “abridges the priviliges of citizens of the United States.” But all the 1st amendment does is restrict legistlative acts of Congress. Nowhere does XIV section 1 say “State legislatures are hereby prohibited from doing all of the things the national legistlature is prohibited from doing.” It just prohibits them from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, etc.
Now, it could certainly be argued that a state law enforcing the recitation of the Pledge abridges people’s liberties and is therefore unconstitutional. But even if XIV Section 1 did transfer the specific proscriptions found in the Bill of Rights to all state legislatures, all that would mean is that state legislatures may make no law respecting the establishment of religion, etc. But even restrictions on state legislatures don’t affect county legislatures, boro or township legislatures, etc. If a state congress were to enact a statewide law enforcing the recitation of the Pledge, then just maybe, that would be unconstitutional. However, just as a local school board rule does not constitute an act of the US Congress, it also does not constitute an act of the state congress. Even if the 14th amendment gave the federal gummint the power to micromanage states, it still didn’t give it the power to micromanage counties, towns, or school boards.
—That argument really pisses me off. If it’s so unimportant, why are you so annoyed at having someone ask for it to be removed?—
It’s worse than that, because this isn’t even legitimate or honest annoyance. Not being required to recite the pledge doesn’t reduce anyones freedom at all. If you want to pledge any pledge with any group of people who feel the same, nothing is stopping you. If you want your children to recite the pledge, you can force them yourself.
The claim that the GOVERNMENT needs to be involved in leading a pledge to it’s own greatness is nothing but dishonest. We the people will decide if the government is living up to its principles, and we the people will decide when and how to pledge our allegience to whatever we please.
The truly amusing thing to watch is how religious issues like this lead people to totally reverse their positions on things like personal autonomy. Taxes: THEFT!!! But being forced to attend religious ceremony which I consider waste of my time: A DUTY!!! Go figure…
Several have mentioned that the words “under God” were added during the red scare days of the fifties. I might add that another thing that some attempted to foist off on anyone holding government office or a teaching position at that time was the so-called “loyalty oath.” My personal belief is that the pledge of allegiance, with or without the words “under god,” and the loyalty oath are equally inappropriate. People show their loyalty (another word for allegiance) by being good citizens. Behavior is the test, not speaking a pledge or signing an oath.
Teaching a pledge to school kids which they recite every day by rote won’t turn them into good citizens, any more than recitations in a religious venue will make them good people. The example of parents and teachers who behave well and respect their country’s institutuions (without being servile) will.
The Ninth Court’s decision may be overturned eventually by the Supreme Court (though I hope not). But nothing will make the pledge in any form an appropriate exercise in any but a private venue and practiced by adults who understand fully what they are saying.
Scalia said on NPR that he believes the constitution to be a “dead” document; it means exactly what they said in the 18th century, which I find interesting.
He also used St. Paul as an example of the death penalty being derived from G-d and therefore good, which I find horrifying.
As things stand in most of the country, no atheist, agnostic or polytheist can openly and honestly pledge their allegiance to the republic. No matter how much they yearn to do so, there is no officially sanctioned pledge that they can take.
The only congressionally approved pledge is reserved solely for the nation’s monotheistic citizens. This wouldn’t matter much if the pledge were just something you mumble every sunday like the lords prayer. Properly spoken, the pledge is taken, not recited. Taking it can be a privilege, an honor, or sometimes even a duty.
When congress passed a their law limiting the pledge to members of certain religious groups, they took away this privilege, honor, and duty from everyone else. That’s not right.
This is a statement commonly made. Frankly, I don’t know what turns children into good citizens. I barely know what I did right and wrong in raising my own children. It’s a lot harder to know what the state should do to produce loyal citizens.
Still, various nations and tribes and clubs and associations and professional societies and churches and social movements do have pledges or chants or songs for their members. So, there seems to be pretty widespread belief that there is at least some degree of effectiveness.
DesertGeezer, your contention may be correct, but I’d sure like to see some evidence.
—Scalia said on NPR that he believes the constitution to be a “dead” document; it means exactly what they said in the 18th century, which I find interesting.—
No one in the 18th century even agreed on what it “said.” And it’s not like Scalia is a big fan of the founders to begin with: he and the Cheif have blatantly ignored the express and explicit opinions of Jefferson and Madison time and time again in religious matters.
—He also used St. Paul as an example of the death penalty being derived from G-d and therefore good, which I find horrifying.—
Where does he read that in the constitution exactly? Oh, that’s right, nowhere. He’s full of it.
Arcite, if you would like to start a thread about the 14th Amendment, please do so. It seems like an unwarranted hijack here, since there is no real question for anybody else that the 1st Amendment does apply to the state and local governments, and 14th Amendment incorporation of the Bill of Rights is rather broader than the Esatblishment Clause.
december, are you even remotely capable of staying on topic? Attacking this case by reference to Prop. 209 is about as relevant as attacking Bush v. Gore on the basis of Plessy v. Ferguson. I’ve defended you in more than one Pit thread, but this is the sort of intentionally irrelevant crap that gets you a couple thread there each month. Or is that your intent?
I don’t know that “The State” should produce loyal citizens, unless I misunderstand the phrasing and that those people who come to the USA and wish to become citizens were produced because they made a decision to be citizens of a free country.
I probably hacked of both left and right with that windy comment.
Cool.
I guess we took radically different Con Law classes. My understanding is that the S.C. slowly began “incorporating” the “liberty interests” of the Bill of Rights against the states starting around the…1920s or 30s, I forget when exactly. Incorporation is the dominant school of thought today, and people like Scalia have given up trying to tackle it.
I wasn’t certain if the 1st Amendment had been incorporated, only because I haven’t taken any first amendment courses yet. Ah, phooey.
