# Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools ruled unconstitutional. Discuss. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644 "2005-09-14T18:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/1 "2005-09-14T18:31:19Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap\_on\_re\_us/pledge\_of\_allegiance](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance) I find it odd that the court referred to precedent from a circuit court, when the SCotUS ruled the other way (on a technicality). Karlton’s previous rulings included, interestingly, [preventing](http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=8687) a student from giving a commencement speech that contained the word “Jesus” and made reference to God. This case is going back to SCotUS in 5…4…3…2… ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/2 "2005-09-14T18:39:42Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > I find it odd that the court referred to precedent from a circuit court, when the SCotUS ruled the other way (on a technicality). Right. They ruled that Newdow didn’t have standing. If that objection is squared away this time, as it seems to be, perhaps they will actually rule on the issue. > [@](#): > > This case is going back to SCotUS in 5…4…3…2… I’m sure. It’s really the same thing all over again: I think legal tests make it pretty clear that the wording of the Pledge has religious intent, the question is whether or not the Court will wave that away by citing tradition. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/3 "2005-09-14T18:40:52Z")
> [@](#): > > find it odd that the court referred to precedent from a circuit court, when the SCotUS ruled the other way (on a technicality). But the SCOTUS did not “rule the other way.” The Supremes threw it out on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have standing and the current court is following the only _point of law_ that has been ruled upon in that Federal District. > [@](#): > > 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. Newdow’s suit was tossed because his daughter did not live with him (and I believe the mother is not atheist and attends religious services with the child). This is a separate suit, in which Newdow has rounded up several other families with no custody issues to plewad the same case. Yes, this time the SCOTUS will have to hear it and, (barring another escape clause), rule on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/4 "2005-09-14T18:41:08Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap\_on\_re\_us/pledge\_of\_allegiance](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance) > > I find it odd that the court referred to precedent from a circuit court, when the SCotUS ruled the other way (on a technicality). Karlton’s previous rulings included, interestingly, [preventing](http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=8687) a student from giving a commencement speech that contained the word “Jesus” and made reference to God. > > This case is going back to SCotUS in 5…4…3…2… The SCOTUS made no precedent setting ruling. They merely found in the first case the person suing lacked proper legal standing. Dunno how the Supremes will rule, but requiring saying the pledge as it stands seems blatantly unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/5 "2005-09-14T18:46:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Yes, this time the SCOTUS will have to hear it and, (barring another escape clause), rule on the issue. They don’t have to hear it, do they? I thought they can just decide not to accept cases. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/6 "2005-09-14T18:57:56Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > They don’t have to hear it, do they? I thought they can just decide not to accept cases. Correct. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/7 "2005-09-14T19:00:26Z")
The objections to mandatory pledge-taking (this assumes that children realistically have no option to refuse or consent) fall into two categories. The first is the 10 C issue of “worshipping graven images.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses and a few other groups object to swearing allegience to an object. The Amish have reservations about oaths, too. The other category is the issue of government-imposed religion. The 1954 addition of “under God” forces a certain religious assumption upon folks who may believe differently. The Newdow case involved atheism, but there’s also Taoists, observant Jews who don’t believe in speaking the name of the Almighty, and various groups who would rather say “Al’lah,” “Vishnu,” or “Og.” (to name just a few) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/8 "2005-09-14T19:02:22Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > They don’t have to hear it, do they? I thought they can just decide not to accept cases. Technically they don’t, but politically they do. The SCOTUS is not going to let stand the idea that the Pledge is unconstitutional. And the Democrats better hope this doesn’t become the law of the land, because between that and gay marriage, they’d never see the inside of the Whitehouse for the next 50 years (slight exageration, but you get the point). ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/9 "2005-09-14T19:08:33Z")
Aww, I didn’t see this thread when I started mine… phooey. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/10 "2005-09-14T19:13:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Technically they don’t, but politically they do. The SCOTUS is not going to let stand the idea that the Pledge is unconstitutional. And the Democrats better hope this doesn’t become the law of the land, because between that and gay marriage, they’d never see the inside of the Whitehouse for the next 50 years (slight exageration, but you get the point). Why should the Dems have any problem with a SC decision ruling the Pledge unconstitutional? Did they appoint a lot of the judges on the Court? Don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/11 "2005-09-14T19:13:13Z")
This comes at a time when some Democrats are doing their level best to portray John Roberts as being outside the judicial mainstream. The judge who ruled in this case was, of course, a Carter appointee. This poses a political problem for Democrats. Faced with two models of supposed judicial radicalism, I think lots of Americans would choose the one that leaves the Pledge alone. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/12 "2005-09-14T19:16:01Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > This comes at a time when some Democrats are doing their level best to portray John Roberts as being outside the judicial mainstream. Really? I thought the “portraying” part would come later - as far as I know, they haven’t been making a lot of noise about his answers in the hearing so far… ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/13 "2005-09-14T19:17:26Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Why should the Dems have any problem with a SC decision ruling the Pledge unconstitutional? Did they appoint a lot of the judges on the Court? Don’t think so. They definitely didn’t, but he’s suggesting it would cause a backlash against them, since Republicans have that whole “religious right” thing going on. I think a lot of people in this country are not big fans of that group, and that religious conservatives have convinced the GOP that the GOP needs them more than they actually do. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/14 "2005-09-14T19:20:28Z")
A heartening decision, and the only corect one, but I’m pretty sure that SCOTUS (if they hear this) will fall back on that phony “Ceremonial Deism” loophole which doesn’t exist in the COTUS but which the Supremes have placed into the law by fiat. They will not have the courage to make the right ruling on this, nor will they have the ability to rise above their own religious biases. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/15 "2005-09-14T19:23:44Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > This poses a political problem for Democrats. How so? The Democrats haven’t been appointing any judges lately. > [@](#): > > Faced with two models of supposed judicial radicalism, I think lots of Americans would choose the one that leaves the Pledge alone. In other words, you think Americans want judges who will ignore the Constitution and ruke by fiat? I thought conservatives didn’t like activist judges. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/16 "2005-09-14T19:24:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Technically they don’t, but politically they do. The SCOTUS is not going to let stand the idea that the Pledge is unconstitutional. By taking out the “under God”, it can be made constitutional. But my guess is that it will be ruled ceremonial deism, which has been (wrongly or rightly) approved countless times. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/17 "2005-09-14T19:27:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Why should the Dems have any problem with a SC decision ruling the Pledge unconstitutional? Did they appoint a lot of the judges on the Court? Don’t think so. Let me walk you thru this… 1. The pledge, with “under God” in it, is widely supported by the American people, roughly 9-1 in favor. [Cite.](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/national/main577944.shtml) 2. If the SCOTUS ruled to strike “under God” from the pledge, or if it just let a lower court’s ruling stand, it wouldn’t matter who appointed the justices. People would come to the conclusion that the Supreme court is too far to the left. 3. In support of this, and other social issues like SSM, the Democrats would find it almost impossible to win the presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/18 "2005-09-14T19:28:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A heartening decision, and the only corect one, but I’m pretty sure that SCOTUS (if they hear this) will fall back on that phony “Ceremonial Deism” loophole which doesn’t exist in the COTUS but which the Supremes have placed into the law by fiat. They will not have the courage to make the right ruling on this, nor will they have the ability to rise above their own religious biases. Heaven forfend that the courts fall back on a phony construction that isn’t written in the Constitution, right? I mean, that’s just madness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/19 "2005-09-14T19:32:11Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > They don’t have to hear it, do they? I thought they can just decide not to accept cases. If the Ninth Circuit rules as they did before, and the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case, then the law of the Ninth Circuit: California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii – will be that the Pledge is unconstitutional in its present form. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/20 "2005-09-14T19:33:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Let me walk you thru this… > > 1. The pledge, with “under God” in it, is widely supported by the American people, roughly 9-1 in favor. [Cite.](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/national/main577944.shtml) > > 2. If the SCOTUS ruled to strike “under God” from the pledge, or if it just let a lower court’s ruling stand, it wouldn’t matter who appointed the justices. People would come to the conclusion that the Supreme court is too far to the left. > > 3. In support of this, and other social issues like SSM, the Democrats would find it almost impossible to win the presidency. This stuff may all be true. Americans are morons and they don’t understand the Constitutution. But I would still rather have the courts make the right ruling than make a wrong one just to satiate the ignorant rabble. It’s more important to be right than to win. If ideology actually means anything, then sometimes compromise is the same as surrender. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=2)