Newdow v. United States of America.
Jun. 28th, 2002 12:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
strredwolfDammit 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!
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!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-06-29 07:45 pm (UTC)