Supreme Court preserved the phrase “one nation, under God”

[FCECC2]

Court dismisses pledge suit
Justices sidestep
church-state issue
in tossing atheist's case
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:12 p.m. ET June 14, 2004WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase “one nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.


At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter’s school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl’s mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow’s favor.

Justice Antonin Scalia removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.

“When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

'Low blow'
“I may be the best father in the world,” Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. “She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don’t have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights.”

The 10-year-old’s mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.


Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words “under God” to what had been a secular patriotic oath.

The high court’s lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.

Newdow’s daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

The First Amendment guarantees that government will not “establish” religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”

The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

for the rest of the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5208621/?GT1=3584



lol this make me smile...

[Mart651]

I am happy about the decission.

[DADDYDBOL]

me too....

[Maraxus]

me three....

[bad_man]

not me.

[Maraxus]

You're such a rebel

[bad_man]

Not really. Everyone else just said what they thought, so I did too. I don't feel like arguing the cause today though.

And for the record, I'm a devout Christian.

[Mart651]

Not really. Everyone else just said what they thought, so I did too. I don't feel like arguing the cause today though.

And for the record, I'm a devout Christian.

Whats wrong with you? I thought this would be right up your alley to debate?
Just kidding bro. I am tired of arguing these things. I would rather just say something offensive and make someone put me on ignore.

[bad_man]

Whats wrong with you? I thought this would be right up your alley to debate?
Just kidding bro. I am tired of arguing these things. I would rather just say something offensive and make someone put me on ignore.

I will say that I think the court took a cheap way out of not making a decision by saying the father couldn't represent his daughter. One way or the other - just make a decision.

And Mart, the only thing I find offensive about you is your breath - at least that's the rumor going around.

[Pale Horse]

I think was is cowardly to dismiss the case on a technicality, but I'm glad they did anyway.

[Mart651]

And Mart, the only thing I find offensive about you is your breath - at least that's the rumor going around.

You think my breath is bad you ought to smell my ass.

[monstercojones]

it would be cool to see a literal seperation of church and state in this nation... but that will never happen.

all of our presidents have been protestant. one was a catholic, and he got shot in the head....

[jerseyboy]

One way or the other I just wish they would be consistent. You outlaw prayer in school but let them say the pledge? Next they'll have to change all U.S. currency and remove "In God We Trust." I think there are a lot of other stronger issues that the courts could be addressing.

[Phillyboy1]

i would have told the father to "get over yourself" he was a duffus
there are more important things this father can be worried about. im not for religion cause i feel i dont need it. im not a athiest, i belive in got, just not organized religion. but i definatly feel religion is good for a child growing up, it adds a sense of consiquence to the rules and moral they are taught growing up. after they reach a older age they can decide for themselves. but growing religion is definatly good for a child

[bigbouncinballs]

thank god, although i am not so much a god-faring person

[zOaib]

well if they even took it out which will eventually happen , the thigns in this country are going , homsexuals getting rights to marriage , this country is becomming more and more crude and deviating from what was originally intended for this nation , capitalisation and monopolisations of everything is taking the peoples rights one after the other , national security is gonna eventually take everyones privacy and their right to it .......... so we come back to GOD , well when was the last time u really cared and said WELL I SHOULDNT DO THIS GOD IS WATCHING ME ! so what the h3ll if take GOD out form the pledge of allegiance its not like anyone BELIEVES in GOD these days ............. BUREAUCRATIC BULLCRAP will take over completely ONE day COMMING VERY SOON !

[BigGreen]

I think was is cowardly to dismiss the case on a technicality, but I'm glad they did anyway.

Truthfully, I think this was one of the few honorable acts by a court we've seen as Americans in some time. Judges and courts have taken to "legislating proactively from the bench" quite a bit for the last two years (MA SJC for example) and while I'm sure every Justice on The Court had a very charged opinion as to this matter that they would have greatly liked to have interjected on this manner, they refrained and stuck to matters of law as a court should....kudos to SCOTUS.

[chicamahomico]

Sorry to hijack this thread but thank you for mentioning this BigGreen. Agreed, this is becoming a trend in western nations as vote seeking politicians sidestep hot potato issues. Events like this often get 'spun' by the media which causes lay people to completely misunderstand what is really going on or how legislation and interpretation should work.

Truthfully, I think this was one of the few honorable acts by a court we've seen as Americans in some time. Judges and courts have taken to "legislating proactively from the bench" quite a bit for the last two years (MA SJC for example) and while I'm sure every Justice on The Court had a very charged opinion as to this matter that they would have greatly liked to have interjected on this manner, they refrained and stuck to matters of law as a court should....kudos to SCOTUS.