So much for the Supreme Court not being political!!!!
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision (or non-decision) in the case of the Elk Grove School District v. Newdow. It dealt with one of the most controversial cases of this term - whether the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause if recited by students in public schools.
In short, the Court allowed the Pledge of Allegiance to continue being recited in public schools with the phrase "under God" intact. But...
...the Court did not rule on the central question presented in the case: does the phrase "under God" amount to a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state?
Instead, they ruled that the young girl's father, Michael Newdow, who did not have legal custody of his daughter, did not have the right to bring the suit against the school district. The mother (and the daughter) are Christians and have no objection to reciting the Pledge. The Court said that Mr. Newdow did not have the right to sue in Court to over-ride a decision made by the parent (mom) with legal custody. But, if the Supreme Court decided to take the case, one would assume that they were prepared to deal with the difficult question of the separation of church and state. But they didn't.
What do you think about this? Did the U.S. Supreme Court wimp out? Is the Pledge, which has contained the words "under God" since Congress added them in the 1950's a violation of the 1st Amendment?
I could say a lot more about this case, but will leave it at this for now: I think the ruling was a good thing for the nation. Maybe I'll add some more of my opinion of this if a few of you have some interesting comments.
Let me know what you think...
2 comments:
The supreme court sooooooooo wimped out on this decision. They completely avoided the only important aspect of the case, and the question that has been on everyone's mind. The supreme court is the deciding judicial body in the U.S. government, key word DECIDING. If we can't depend on the Court to make guiding political decisions (not that they will necessarily be good ones) then arguments become circular, with every judicial body deferring to another and without any definitive rulings taking place.
This being said, I do not think that the Pledge is a violation of the first amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that children are forced to say the pledge. Therefore, their rights are not being violated. However, the rights of the school of educational organization ARE being violated if they are forced to remove the pledge from their regular practice. This is basically akin to censorship. Say whatever you want, just don't force other people to say it.
The other issue in this case is, of course, whether or not American government has overstepped the boundary between church and state. In the past and especially during Bush's administration there has been an overwhelming presense of religious public rhetoric and discourse emanating from the White House (Bush's post 9/11 anti terrorism speeches). The constituion is riddled with religious references as well. Many people believe that, because of these factors, the government has overstepped the church/state line, however the issue remains controversial because a large majority of Americans happen to agree with the religious discourse of Bush and others. It seems that, to the American public, remaining politically and religiously impartial is expected, except when a religious bias represents the majority. I guess we really are a democracy.
=)
~Anna
Commenting on pledge of aligiance:
This is a difficult question... should the state rule to have the pledge of aligiance taken out of school. The seperation of church and state should apply in schools becuase they are public and open to the community therefore children should not have to be expossed to this term if it offends them in any way. I understand the parents concern over this matter. however he did not even have custudy over his daughter and had no right to sue the school over this matter. If the girls mother had a problem with the plegde then it would have been her problem not the fathers.
Post a Comment