Mother of pledge-battle girl vows to fight for ‘under god’
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12656717.htm
By Jim PUzzanghera
Knight Ridder
San Jose Mercury News, California
Sept. 15, 2005
[excerpt]
Sandra Banning, the Sacramento, Calif.-area mother of the girl who
helped trigger the legal battle over the Pledge of Allegiance that
flared anew this week, came to the nation's capital Thursday with a
pledge of her own: To do everything she can to keep the pledge in
schools and the phrase "under God" in the pledge. The day after a
Sacramento federal judge revived the controversy by ruling that
reciting the pledge in public schools is an unconstitutional
violation of the separation of church and state, Banning's efforts
became intertwined with the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. Banning publicly urged
his confirmation in hopes that he would rule against the case
brought by her 11-year-old daughter's father, Michael Newdow, the
atheist and amateur lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court
that the pledge should be kept out of public schools. And to help
rally support for the Pledge of Allegiance as the case works its
way again toward the high court, she's forming a grass-roots
advocacy group, the "One Nation Under God Foundation," affiliated
with the conservative Traditional Values Coalition. Typical of
their contentious relationship, which has involved a nasty, long-
running custody battle over their 11-year old daughter, Newdow and
Banning disagreed on how Roberts would rule. "He sounds like a very
intelligent, thoughtful man, and if he applies the principles
underlying the Constitution ... then I have absolutely no doubt he
would rule in my favor," Newdow said in a telephone interview. The
case started in 2000 when Newdow, a former Sacramento resident now
living in Texas, objected to his daughter's reciting the pledge
with her kindergarten class in the Elk Grove Unified School
District. He argued that the government was telling her he was
wrong to be an atheist because the pledge declares this is "one
nation, under God." Banning, a Christian, opposed his suit. After
the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stunned the
nation in 2002 by agreeing with Newdow that the pledge was
unconstitutional, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Newdow, a doctor with a law degree, became a legal celebrity, a
novice lawyer who received special permission to argue his case
before the high court in March 2004. The justices dismissed the
case three months later on a technicality, ruling Newdow did not
have custody of his daughter when he filed the lawsuit and
therefore did not have standing to bring it to the courts. He re-
filed the case on behalf of three unnamed parents from the same
school district. After Wednesday's ruling, the case again could be
headed to the Supreme Court. "We won on a technicality. A win is a
win. We'll take it," said Banning, who is self-employed provider of
administrative support services for various companies. "It's given
us at least another year and a half, maybe two, to educate the
American public ... kind of stir the pot, if you will, on why these
cases are important." Banning, who never married Newdow, said she
has tried to shield their daughter, now in the sixth grade, from
the case. The girl, whose name has been kept out of the media, knew
her father was in the media Wednesday and asked Banning about it.
"I've reassured her many, many, many times ... reminding her that
he has the right as a citizen of this great nation to file these
cases," Banning said. "But equally so, mom has the right and, I
believe, really the necessity to stand up for cases of this nature."
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
