http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15800
Justice Department to fight to keep Pledge in public schools
By The Associated Press
09.16.05
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says the Justice
Department will fight to overturn a federal court ruling that the
Pledge of Allegiance can't be recited in public schools because it
contains a reference to God.
Gonzales says the pledge is one of several expressions of national
identity and patriotism that mention God but don't violate the
Constitution's ban on state-sponsored religion.
The high court "has affirmed time and again that such official
acknowledgments of our nation's religious heritage, foundation and
character are constitutional," Gonzales said in a statement yesterday,
a day after the ruling by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in San
Francisco.
****************************************
another side of the issue
The Court Hears Oral Argument in the "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance
Case:
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and Why the Department of Justice
Is Wrong To Support It
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilto...@aol.com
Thursday, Mar. 25, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040325.html
***************************************************************
Karlton's decision in Newdow v. Congress could put the issue on track
for another round of Supreme Court arguments. The Court sidestepped
the issue last year, ruling in Elk Grove Unified School District v.
Newdow that atheist Michael Newdow had no standing to bring the case
on behalf of his daughter because he did not have custody of her.
The Bush administration had opposed Newdow on the same basis that
Gonzales set forth yesterday. Newdow also is involved in the latest
case, acting as attorney for three parents challenging the pledge
because it includes the words "under God."
Gonzales is widely viewed as a leading contender for retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court because he is close to
President George W. Bush. Gonzales' statement of support to keep
"under God" in the pledge could appeal to religious conservatives, who
have expressed concerns about him as a potential justice because he
has not stated opposition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing
abortion.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the
pledge case, said it would appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the `under God' provision of the
pledge unconstitutional in 2002.
The decisions by Karlton and the appeals court conflict with an August
opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond,
Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools to
lead daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, similar to the
requirement in California.
Meanwhile, the Senate voted late yesterday to condemn the district
judge's ruling.
The nonbinding resolution (S.Res. 243), approved by unanimous consent,
states that the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge reflects
the religious faith central to the founding of the nation and that its
recitation is "a fully constitutional expression of patriotism."
The House and Senate approved similar resolutions in 2002 in response
to the 9th Circuit decision.
"It's unfortunate that the Senate is once again compelled to defend
the Pledge of Allegiance because of the actions of a federal court,"
said Sen. Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican, who introduced the
resolution.
*****************************************************************************
The complete Pledge series by Marci Hamilton
Lunacy of Pledge Protection Act
Lunacy of only state courts interpreting First Amendment
By Marci A. HamiltonFindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Thursday, September 23, 2004 Posted: 5:10 PM EDT (2110 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/hamilton.pledge/
The Pennsylvania Mandatory School Pledge of Allegiance Law:
Why A Federal Appeals Court Was Right to Strike It Down
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilto...@aol.com
Thursday, Aug. 26, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040826.html
The Supreme Court Decision on the Pledge of Allegiance Case:
Why It Raises Federalism Issues
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilto...@aol.com
Thursday, Jun. 17, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040617.html
The Court Hears Oral Argument in the "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance
Case:
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and Why the Department of Justice
Is Wrong To Support It
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilto...@aol.com
Thursday, Mar. 25, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040325.html
THE ONGOING FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS DOMINANCE:
From The Secret Service Agent's Slur, To Critiques Of The Ninth Circuit's
Pledge Of Allegiance Decision
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilto...@aol.com
Thursday, Aug. 01, 2002
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020801.html
***************************************************************
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 [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
****************************************************************
.
|
