Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Associated Press
Sept. 14, 2005 12:05 PM

SAN FRANCISCO - 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, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

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.

Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court in July.

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.

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

Funny, I never saw this law in any form under any juristiction; "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Damn liberal Christian-haters at it again. I agree, if you don't like it, don't say it. True aethiests are not the ones pushing this either. That is what gets me most. People who have money and want fame with friends at the ACLU.

I always thought the term "under god" was put in there by congress in the 50's.

Before then I think most Americans did not care what deity you swore to as long as you pledged loyalty.

/just sayin, continue to the "moral outrage" speeches ad nauseum

Interesting... I understand why the court threw it out last time (father didn't have legal custody). But now it looks like we have some parents who DO have custody.

One guy (atheist) does have a point when he says "Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said. "I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

The other interesting thing I see is the 4th Circuit saying "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."

So they aren't denying it has a religious phrase. In this case, why would they allow "under God" to be within it?

So...I never knew this...

The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy.

AND...he was a CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST!

A christian who did NOT put "Under God" in it and was a socialist!

OH the irony!

To add...

"Under God" was added in '54. Who led the campaign to put it in there?

uh...a little group called the Knights of Columbus.

Y'all do know who they are, right?

People like that give athiests like me a bad name. I dont care if you think you are God, as long as I get to think you are not and you don't tell me I have to belive you. Are people this bored that they nit-pick little things and make a fuss over them? Don't they have jobs and social lives?

You know, I don't get it. These people have serious issues with the phrase "under God" in the pledge, yet I'm willing to bet that they have "In God We Trust" on them most of the time. I'm betting the US Treasury isn't willing to change the engraving plates so easily. Why don't these people protest by filing those offensive words off their coins?

It's ironic that this ruling came out today, cause my wife and I were planning on bring this issue up with the principal at my kids school during a PTA meeting tomorrow.
I was amazed, when on his first day of school two weeks ago, they have all the kids recite the pledge every morning. Needless to say, I was a tad bit disappointed in my school of choice. Considering the courts ruling, I remain hopeful that the principal will discontinue this practice; especially in the city where the ruling came from!

Let's change it "Many nations, under one governemt".

I'd like them to change the Motto back to what the founding fathers made it.

Dump "In God We Trust".

Bring back "E Pluribus Unum."

Seriously, don't people have better things to do? I'm so sick of these cases, both on the left and the right. So it says "under God." Big fricken deal. Most kids don't even listen to what they're saying. I know I didn't pay attention when I was in third grade. It was just one of those things that started the day out.

And on the right, I could care less if you have a big honkin statue of the ten commandments in the front yard of a courthouse. Just don't get pissed off when a muslim wants to put a big honkin statue of the Koran right next to it. Or a Buddhist wants to put a big statue of Buddha next to it.

I would, however, draw the line if a Wiccan wanted to put a big honkin statue of Mother Nature's Vagina out there. Espically if it leaked every twenty eight days.

Eww...just.....eww.

I could give two squirts of piss what you want to put out there. Just let me pay the traffic ticket and get the fuck out.

Here we go again. A Democrat appointed (Jimmy Carter) federal judge pulls shit out of his ass on an identical case that was already decided.

In the previous decision .......the Supreme Court reversed the lower Court (the radical 9th Circuit) and essentailly concluded that the 9th Circuit should never have heard the case and that it should never have reached it's conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge.

This asshole judge Karlton used the previous 9th Circuit ruling as precedent. The Supreme Court blew that away in it's last ruling. It cannot be used as precendent for current cases such as this one.

Bottom line, a new 9th Circuit panel will have to hear the case. At minimum it should be thrown back to federal district court because Karlton's ruling was based on false precedent.

It could also be reversed at the 9th Circuit level. Who knows with all the radicals on that court. At worst it will go to the Supreme Court with newly appointed justices.

This case is not likely of any success.

Also consider the fact that the words "under God" have never been ruled by the Supremes to be in violation of the the Establishment Clause.

News like this is good at a time when new Supreme Court Justices are being decided. The majority of the public doesn't like rulings like this and this will most likely make it easier for more conservative justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

It's good for conservatives when the public is angry at the judiciary when new Supreme Court justices are being confirmed.

The leftist asshole Newdow may have done conseratives a big favor with the timing of this bit of news.

It's a good thing the funds for this weren't diverted to some porkbarrel bullsh!t like Katrina relief!!

Well...it's still not half as disturbing as that time you pulled a gerbil out of yours....

What funds? :rolleyes:

I suppose technically this lawsuit has merit. After all, atheists have rights and I can understand that a "devout atheist" would be pissed to have his child in a class where "under God" was chanted, ... even though no child is forced to say it. Subliminally the child is being taught there is a god. However I suspect the guy who filed this lawsuit is only interested in publicity.

I think the Supreme Court will keep "under God" in the pledge. If they uphold the ruling it will only be because it is an issue involving children. They might say "oh, the government can benignly say 'God' on adult matters like money and public buildings. But coercising children to say it a no-no".

...nah! Our conservative court will throw it out, kicking atheists and our constitution in the gonads. We'll then start seeing messages like "honk if you love Jesus" underneath traffic signs.

_Lazza

My humble opinion...

If you are religeous, you would see REMOVING the words as threatening, as if the government was separating church and state, rather than allowing a connection, and you would want the words kept in....

and - having to say every morning that you DIDN'T believe that your government was under God would be difficult....

and

If you are truly an atheist, you are not afraid of God hearing you say he exists or not, the words themselves should be meaningless, as if the Pledge made you say "One Nation, Under the Easter Bunny"...you may think its silly, but would not feel threatened by the general public's need to affirm this as part of a morning routine.

So - An atheist should not care, and a religeuos person would be threatened.

TJ, I agree with you but the issue at hand is the children of atheists .. and not the atheists themselves. Certainly adults who are atheists should simply do a :rolleyes: when the hear the term "under God". And the guy filing the lawsuit is being a wee bit anal.

No doubt you entirely correct about how religious people would view removal of "under God" from the pledge. They would be pissed off to no end and scream that the ACLU has taken over America. (..we should be so lucky )

_Lazza

Yikes!!!!!!!! I agree with Wilmac.

I have to go take a shower now, I feel dirty.

That is just it, the Supreme Court already ruled in favor of keeping "under God" in the pledge. I don't understand how a lesser court is able to overturn the Supreme Court. It isn't supposed to work that way, yet we citizens allow it.

I used to get really wound up defending people's rights to NOT say "under God" in the pledge, let alone my right NOT to say the pledge or sing the national anthem.

And then I got a life.

If you're atheist and don't want your kid thinking there really is a God, fine. Take it into your own hands to teach your kid that. Otherwise, get over it. You're living in a nation whose populace is probably more Christian than not, being governed by people who are probably more Christian than not. Christian morals/principals/sayings are gonna leak themselves into official documents/pledges/etc.

If you don't like it, you can move.

Makes me laugh as an outsider how wound up everyone gets here in the US about this subject.

All I can say is. Whomever the idiot is who is lodging this complaint, someone should take all of his money away, because he obviously can't spend it with 'In God we Trust' written on it.

If he ever wins this battle I'm sure that will be his next one. Removing mention of God from our currency too. Some religous psycho needs to just shoot this guy and do us all a favor.

No, because then the liberal press and Wilmac will go on record and blame it on Bush. I'd much rather just see him choke to death on tofu.