Pledge of Allegiance Ceremony in Public Schools does not violate Constitution
Originally the California Court of Appeals ruled that the pledge of allegiance policy at the school was unconstitutional. The appeals court based its decision on the earlier US Supreme Court decision Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 (1992). That case arose out of a graduation ceremony at a public high school in Rhode Island. The Supreme Court ruled that a religious ceremony at the graduation, involving an invocation and benediction, was unconstitutional, even though it was voluntary, because students would feel pressured to attend the ceremony.
The California Court of Appeals decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, where a majority ruled on technical grounds that the complainant did not have a right to bring the case to the court. Minority opinions argued by Rehnquist and Thomas, stated that the court should have addressed the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, but ducked this issue on the technical ground that the complainant did not have the right to sue. Rehnquist opined that actually the complainant did have the right to sue, but that still the pledge of allegiance was constitutional. Rehnquist stated that the US Supreme Court's earlier decision where it prohibited a religious ceremony at a public school graduation, did not apply to the pledge of allegiance case, due to the differences between the pledge of allegiance and the religious graduation ceremony involved in the Lee v. Weisman case. Essentially Rehnquist seems to have declared something like, "the pledge of allegiance in the schools is not unconstitutional because I say so. Put that in your pipe and smoke it". Thomas opined that the Court of Appeals had based its decision on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, which he declared to have been an erroneous decision by the court. Thomas emphasized, that the first amendment to the constitution, prohibits congress from making a law establishing a religion, but does not prohibit entities other than the federal congress from making such laws.
The California District court judge has now ruled that he is bound by precedent set by the earlier California Court of Appeals decision in California atheist Newdow's favor, which was overturned by the Supreme Court on the technical grounds that Newdow did not have a right to bring the case before the Supreme Court. Apparently the manner in which the Supreme Court over-ruled the California Court of Appeals on technical grounds, was such that the precedent set by the Court of Appeals still dominates the mind of the California District Court judge who has this week ruled in Newdow's favor.
I concur with Justice Thomas in that I do not believe the pledge of allegiance policy in the California Public School, violates the first amendment to the constitution, because the constitution prohibits CONGRESS from making laws establishing religion, and does not prhibit entities such as public school districts from making such laws. It surprises me how so many justices, have been able to ignore this point.
Furthermore I find, that in establishing the pledge of allegiance, Congress did not enact a law establishing a religion. What congress did, was declare that the pledge of allegiance, when said, should be said in a certain way. Congress did not even order that the pledge of allegiance be said. Congress simply said that the pledge of allegiance should be said in a certain way, when it is said. Congress did not prescribe any penalties for those who did not say the pledge of allegiance the way congress suggested it be said. Congress reccommended all kinds of etiquette regarding the flag, without prescribing any punishment for those who failed to follow the etiquette. There is no punishment for those who for example fail to hoist the flag in a "brisk" manner. Even when Congress prescribed that those who desecrate the flag be fined or imprisoned, it did not specify what the fine should be, and emphasized that state regulations have dominance over congress' reccommendations re the punishment of flag burners; and congress emphasized that the Supreme Court should hear and deal with any objections to the penalty it had prescribed for flag burners.
Congress has an obvious right to give its advice to to the public regarding how the flag should be treated, and regarding other such matters. It is natural that a people should look to its elected leaders for advice regarding all kinds of matters including spiritual matters and it is natural that the nation's leaders should dispense such advice. A group of congress-critters getting together to sign a petition advising the public that they should live in this or that manner, does not, of course violate the first amendment's prohibition of legislation establishing religion. Thus it would be false to say that the constitution has been violated because, even though the state and not the congress is pushing through the pledge of allegiance in schools, what is being pushed through is a congressional violation of the first amendment.
Suppose that congress had indeed passed some law say law X, that unconstitutionally established a religion. If a state such as california were to copy law X, which congress unconstitutionally passed, into a state version of law X, the given state such as california would have a right to do this, even if congress's version of law X was unconstitutional, so long as the state's version of law X was constitutional.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
The California Court of Appeals decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, where a majority ruled on technical grounds that the complainant did not have a right to bring the case to the court. Minority opinions argued by Rehnquist and Thomas, stated that the court should have addressed the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, but ducked this issue on the technical ground that the complainant did not have the right to sue. Rehnquist opined that actually the complainant did have the right to sue, but that still the pledge of allegiance was constitutional. Rehnquist stated that the US Supreme Court's earlier decision where it prohibited a religious ceremony at a public school graduation, did not apply to the pledge of allegiance case, due to the differences between the pledge of allegiance and the religious graduation ceremony involved in the Lee v. Weisman case. Essentially Rehnquist seems to have declared something like, "the pledge of allegiance in the schools is not unconstitutional because I say so. Put that in your pipe and smoke it". Thomas opined that the Court of Appeals had based its decision on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, which he declared to have been an erroneous decision by the court. Thomas emphasized, that the first amendment to the constitution, prohibits congress from making a law establishing a religion, but does not prohibit entities other than the federal congress from making such laws.
The California District court judge has now ruled that he is bound by precedent set by the earlier California Court of Appeals decision in California atheist Newdow's favor, which was overturned by the Supreme Court on the technical grounds that Newdow did not have a right to bring the case before the Supreme Court. Apparently the manner in which the Supreme Court over-ruled the California Court of Appeals on technical grounds, was such that the precedent set by the Court of Appeals still dominates the mind of the California District Court judge who has this week ruled in Newdow's favor.
I concur with Justice Thomas in that I do not believe the pledge of allegiance policy in the California Public School, violates the first amendment to the constitution, because the constitution prohibits CONGRESS from making laws establishing religion, and does not prhibit entities such as public school districts from making such laws. It surprises me how so many justices, have been able to ignore this point.
Furthermore I find, that in establishing the pledge of allegiance, Congress did not enact a law establishing a religion. What congress did, was declare that the pledge of allegiance, when said, should be said in a certain way. Congress did not even order that the pledge of allegiance be said. Congress simply said that the pledge of allegiance should be said in a certain way, when it is said. Congress did not prescribe any penalties for those who did not say the pledge of allegiance the way congress suggested it be said. Congress reccommended all kinds of etiquette regarding the flag, without prescribing any punishment for those who failed to follow the etiquette. There is no punishment for those who for example fail to hoist the flag in a "brisk" manner. Even when Congress prescribed that those who desecrate the flag be fined or imprisoned, it did not specify what the fine should be, and emphasized that state regulations have dominance over congress' reccommendations re the punishment of flag burners; and congress emphasized that the Supreme Court should hear and deal with any objections to the penalty it had prescribed for flag burners.
Congress has an obvious right to give its advice to to the public regarding how the flag should be treated, and regarding other such matters. It is natural that a people should look to its elected leaders for advice regarding all kinds of matters including spiritual matters and it is natural that the nation's leaders should dispense such advice. A group of congress-critters getting together to sign a petition advising the public that they should live in this or that manner, does not, of course violate the first amendment's prohibition of legislation establishing religion. Thus it would be false to say that the constitution has been violated because, even though the state and not the congress is pushing through the pledge of allegiance in schools, what is being pushed through is a congressional violation of the first amendment.
Suppose that congress had indeed passed some law say law X, that unconstitutionally established a religion. If a state such as california were to copy law X, which congress unconstitutionally passed, into a state version of law X, the given state such as california would have a right to do this, even if congress's version of law X was unconstitutional, so long as the state's version of law X was constitutional.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 3:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home