Newdow v. United States of America.

[strredwolf]

Dammit folks, if I have to hear one more barely-informed argument against Newdow in this Pledge of Alegence contriversy...



Ok, folks, turn off the TV and the radio, and throw away the newspaper. Then pull up the Court Decision (Adobe Acrobat Reader or Ghostscript/GV needed) and *READ* through it. Don't have time? Then follow me.

The Pledge was codified into law well before a 1954 act (a bill that passed into law) which added "under God" to the Pledge. Newdow objects to that, saying that the act infringes on his right as a parent to tutor his daughter on his religon (or lack of religion, as it turns out -- he's an atheist), as defined by the First Admendment. The infringement occurs as California's Department of Education mandates the teachers to say (and lead every kid who wants to say it) the Pledge in it's current (religious) form.

The first court dismissed the case after some probing, but apparently didn't probe deep enough. The 9th Circut Court of Appeals, a Federal court, took up an appeal by Newdow and probed it deeper.

The court took all three tests set by the Supreeme Court for the determination of violation, and ran the post-1954 Pledge through it. IT FAILED ALL THREE. The pre-1954 Pledge (without "under God") passed spectactually, because it nicely avoids the problems.

As a rule of law, literally and spiritualy, there was no choice but to strike down the 1954 law specifally. "under God" violates the Consitution.

If you don't like it, pass another Admendment striking down the First.

Oh, BTW, there's no mention of "God" in the Consitution. The Declaration of Independence has it, but it's not a binding document -- it's a letter to England!

Comments

[aeire.livejournal.com]

The whole bit about Virginia now thinking about requiring schools to put up the motto 'In God We Trust' in all their schools seems a bit farfetched to me, though.

I imagine if everyone just sent them a dollar or two it'd probably be a lot more helpful altogether...

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

The first celebrity reaction from this off of FoxNews was "This is an excelent case for School Vouchers."

A few days later, the Supreeme Court says School Vouchers are legal, as long as they're applicable to all schools.

[ketrien.livejournal.com]

well, for those of you who don't know - i live in cleveland, which is where the whole school voucher thing -started-. the reaction around here is very mixed - most of the folks are saying that it's good for the cleveland city schools (one of the absolute worst performing districts in the nation) because it forces them to improve - something they've been working on for years since city hall took over. the other groups say it's bad because it takes away from public funding which improves the schools. there's a lot of well reasoned debate going on around here about that subject. this whole constitution thing is being more than just politicisized. they're turning it into the mccarthyism it was written under. you think the court was right? you must be a pinko commie bastard! er i mean islamic extremist terrorist supporter! whatever works!

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

In Baltimore, MD, alot of city schools were taken over by a private corporation under the city's thankful direction of Mayor O'Malley. After some difficulty, they are very much pulling ahead of the regular schools, even though normal kids are going through them w/o a voucher or anything.

Why is that? Well, Mayor O'Malley is an accountant by trade (as is his DC counterpart, who really pulled the city out of a slump while wearing a bow tie). No pure politician can run a city now -- it has to be done by the numbers.

[ketrien.livejournal.com]

there's the problem. cleveland city schools had mayor michael white. cleveland's own personal enron - hiding everything with shady bookkeeping or lack thereof, leaving the city $11mil in the hole as i recall when he finally left office. long live the suburbs.

[talldan.livejournal.com]

Well, since the 3rd Estate is for intents ansd purposes DEAD and replaced by Yellow journalism, emotioncasting, and MTV News, TECHNICALLY the MAJORITY is Barely Informed... especially after watching the news...

Anything and Everything to get their way

[xilimyth.livejournal.com]

Is it just me, or are a lot of people wanting to over-interpret the first amendment. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but things that have been around for as long as the Pledge of Allegiance just shouldn't be changed....

Maybe I'm just lazy or something...

Never mind, I'm completely lost...