| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 05:38:42 AM |
| Object: |
Litigation history of pledge 2000 to now |
COMMENTS BY THOSE WHO FRAMED THE ACT OF 1954 (LEGISLATIVE INTENT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/1a8f892a6f8858a?output=gplain===========================================================
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?S1A452DCB
*************************************************************************************
On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all." Pub. L. No. 623, Ch.
435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972).
On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the
words "under God" after the word "Nation." Pub. L. No. 396,
Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) ("1954 Act"). The Pledge is currently
codified as "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all." 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and
recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494
(1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now
found in Title 4.)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9111
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
************************************************************************************
ORIGINAL DISTRICT COURT RULING
May- July 2000
Got to
Restore our Pledge of Allegiance
http://www.restorethepledge.com/
Cliick on Past Litigation on the sidebar on the left
Click here for the briefs, orders, etc at the bttpm of the The Pledge of
Allegiance Lawsuit section
Click on District Court for the Eastern District of California
Got to
2000-05-25 Magistrate Judge Nowinski files his (Click on) "Findings
and Recommendation," recommending that the Motion be upheld.
2000-07-21 District Judge Schwartz files his (Click on) "Order,"
upholding the Motion to Dismiss.
*****************************************************************************
ORIGINAL DISTRICT COURT RULING (My discussion with religious type over the
actual ruling, waht was said, what it meant )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/8022d77c4e77e2b0?hl=en&
************************************************************************************
NEWDOW I (JUNE 28 2002)
[10] In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words
"under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of
teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included,
violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with
respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on
this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9131
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
***********************************************************************************
9TH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW II
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW v. .U.S. CONGRESS; No. 00-16423 Filed June 26,
2002 Amended February 28, 2003, p 2776
NEWDOW II (FEBRUARY 28, 2003)
[9] In light of Supreme Court precedent, we hold that the school
district's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge,
with the inclusion of the added words "under God," violates
the Establishment Clause. In addition to the relief that Newdow seeks
against the school district—relief to which he is entitled—Newdow seeks a
declaration as to the constitutionality of the 1954 Act. The district court
did not discuss that question because it dismissed Newdow's complaint on
the basis of its holding that the school district's policy did not violate
the First Amendment. Given our contrary holding, we must consider whether
to grant Newdow's claim for declaratory relief as to the Act. Normally,
whether to decide a claim for declaratory judgment is left to the
discretion of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); see also Government
Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 1998). We
doubt that, given the relief to which we decide Newdow is entitled, the
district court would have exercised its discretionary power to resolve, in
the present case, the additional issue as to which Newdow seeks declaratory
relief. Accordingly, we decline to reach that issue here.
[10] The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to Newdow's
claim that the school district's Pledge policy violates the Establishment
Clause and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW v. .U.S. CONGRESS; No. 00-16423 Filed June 26,
2002 Amended February 28, 2003, p 2812
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/2pet/7pet/2002-1574.pet.app.pdf
However, the dissenting judge in Newdow II had this to say about it:
Even though they removed the comments about Congress acting
unconstitutionally the dissenting judge said this in NEWDOW II
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . 3 Perhaps in an effort to avoid ultimate Supreme Court review,
Newdow II which replaces it, avoids expressly reaching the technical
question of the constitutionality of the 1954 Act. Fundamentally, however,
the amended decision is every bit as hold as its predecessor. It bans the
voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools of
the nine western states thereby directly affecting over 9.6 million
students, 4 necessarily implies that both an Act of Congress5 and a
California law6 are unconstitutional, . . . "
O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, with whom KL EINFELD, GOULD, T ALLMAN, R
AW7.,INSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial
of rehearing en banc:
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW v. .U.S. CONGRESS; No. 00-16423 Filed June 26,
2002 Amended February 28, 2003, p 2781
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/2pet/7pet/2002-1574.pet.app.pdf
=====================================================
Thus, in his mind, while any direct reference to the act by Congress being
unconstitutional (which it was, in that Newdow I was correct) it is now in
the background via being implied, in the opinion of the dissenting judge.
***********************************************************************************
Pew Forum
Pledge of Allegiance Resources
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/
Event Transcript: Under God? A Discussion of the Constitutionality of the
Pledge of Allegiance
Issue Backgrounder: One Nation Under God? A Constitutional Question
Latest News
Somw comments:
"I am disappointed with the court's action," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a
particular religious belief in order to show love of country. America is
increasingly diverse in matters of religion, and our public schools should
reflect that diversity."
But Jay Sekulow, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress
and the Committee to Protect the Pledge urging the Court to reverse the
Ninth Circuit's ruling, disagreed. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court
reached the proper conclusion in determining that Michael Newdow did not
have legal standing to bring the lawsuit challenging the Pledge of
Allegiance," he said.
"By dismissing this case and removing the appeals court decision, the
Supreme Court has removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over one of
the nations most important and cherished traditions—the ability of students
across the nation to acknowledge the fact that our freedoms in this country
come from God, not government," Sekulow said.
Doug Laycock, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of 32 Christian and
Jewish clergy urging the Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit's ruling, called
the decision "an entirely sensible resolution to a difficult question. For
most Justices in the majority, this result avoided a very difficult
problem: it was politically impossible to strike down the Pledge, and
legally impossible to uphold it.
"The three opinions that would uphold the Pledge illustrate the difficulty
of that task: they take three wildly inconsistent approaches," Laycock
said. "Chief Justice Rehnquist implausibly claims that nothing in the
Pledge is really religious. Justice Thomas would abolish all existing law
under the Establishment Clause. Justice O'Connor would hold that the Pledge
is a permissible form of ‘ceremonial deism,' recognizable as such because
it is very brief, recited by rote, avoids reference to any particular
religion, and is not worship or prayer. This is an important opinion; it is
the first Supreme Court opinion suggesting objective criteria for
distinguishing permissible and impermissible government invocations of
religion."
Background
Reactions from Advocacy Groups
Resources from the Courts
Supreme Court Opinion
Transcript of Oral Arguments
Briefs on the Merits
Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner
Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondent
Cert Briefs
Other Resources
Articles, Editorials and Op-Eds
Articles on Justice Scalia
***************************************************************
March 24, 2004
Newdow v. Rehnquist
Michael Newdow, the atheist-doctor-attorney from California who wants
"under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, made his argument to the
Supreme Court today. And HE made it HIMSELF, not some high-priced
experienced appellate lawyer.
By one first-hand account, Newdow wasn't too shabby for a guy who doesn't
actually practice law for a living. He even one-upped Rehnquist at one
point:
In response to his assertions that the Pledge's reference to "under
God" divides, rather than unites, the country, the Chief [Justice
Rehnquist] asked by what vote Congress added the phrase in 1954. Newdow
responded that it was unanimous, to which the Chief joked, "That doesn't
sound very divisive," to which Newdow responded, "That's because no atheist
can get elected to office in this country." Several members of the audience
then broke out in applause, a serious breach of decorum at this Court,
causing the Chief to say angrily that the courtroom would be cleared if
there was any more clapping.
http://www.freespeech.com/archives/002324.html
*************************************************************************************
USSC
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html
***************************************************************************************
SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CASE
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/religious%20liberties/news2003.htm
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Elk Grove Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
02-1624, the case challenging the constitutionality of the words "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court will address two questions: (1)
whether Newdow has standing; and (2) whether a public school district
policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Justice Scalia has recused
himself from the case, a move he has declined to explain publicly. Newdow
asked for the Justice's recusal based on views Scalia espoused in a speech
celebrating religious freedom.
Click HERE to access an article summarizing Justice Scalia's speech.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/911/2003/012003/01132003/846367
Click HERE to access the Ninth Circuit's original opinion: Newdow v. United
States Congress, et al., No. 00-16423 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2002). PDF
http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/Newdow.pdf
Click HERE to access the amended opinion and dissents from denial of
rehearing en banc: Newdow v. United States Congress, et al.[Newdow II], No.
00-16423 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2003). PDF
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AC18E7FEB98DB6D88256CDB000AFCF4/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?D18321DCB
*************************************************************************************
addtional info
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1682/features
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=++Newdow+v.+Elk+Grove+Unified+School+District%29.+&btnG=Search
**************************************************************************************
NEW EVENTS
AUGUST 10, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Myers v. Loudoun County Pub. Sch. (08/10/05 - No. 03-1364)
A Virginia statue which provides for daily, voluntary recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance in Virginia's public schools does not violate the
Establishment Clause where the Pledge is not a religious exercise and does
not threaten an establishment of religion.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031364p.pdf [PDF File]
******************************************************************************************
Judge rules School Pledge unconstitutional
http://207.41.18.73/caed/DOCUMENTS/Opinions/Karlton/05-17.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE REV. DR. MICHAEL
A. NEWDOW, et al.,
NO. CIV. S-05-17 LKK/DAD
Plaintiffs,
v. O R D E R
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, et al., TO BE PUBLISHED
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes
Litigation likely in anal copyright scrap
Pledger Litigation Update
Re: Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes
Litigation In Crisis - Attorney Sues Himself
Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes
The Pledge, back in court, current litigation
Re: Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes
| Mission Accomplished! Another GI Killed By Bush's Big Lie. Where Are All You ***** NeoCon Chickenhawks Now?
Make $$ now quick. THIS WORKS I SWEAR TO IT!! paid my tuition
[OT] Now if it wouldn't get you killed in Los Angeles or New York....
Two-Thirds Of ALL Crops In US Now GM Contaminated.
Fool Me One, Shame on... Now Watch This Drive!
"The Manchurian Candidate" director Jonathan Demme, "This is a movie about political brainwashing, and we're right back there again now"
Re: Now that Killian Memos validated... well, rightards?
|
|
|
