Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
UPDATE
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit 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 lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.
A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.
"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."
Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."
Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
It has the word "under god"? Oh noes!
Originally posted by: zendari
Why not just refuse to recite the pledge if it bothers you so much?
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: zendari
Why not just refuse to recite the pledge if it bothers you so much?
Hey, why not just change it to "Under Allah"... and YOU can refuse to recite it?
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: zendari
Why not just refuse to recite the pledge if it bothers you so much?
Hey, why not just change it to "Under Allah"... and YOU can refuse to recite it?
Sure, if you can get the support to make that change.
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
It has the word "under god"? Oh noes!
Is it neccessary? Take it out.
Originally posted by: russianpower
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
It has the word "under god"? Oh noes!
Is it neccessary? Take it out.
Is it unnecessary?
Originally posted by: russianpower
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
It has the word "under god"? Oh noes!
Is it neccessary? Take it out.
Is it unnecessary?
Is Michael Newdow involved in this?Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.Originally posted by: chambersc
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
McCarthyismOriginally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why was the change made in 1953?Originally posted by: zendari
Sure, if you can get the support to make that change.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Hey, why not just change it to "Under Allah"... and YOU can refuse to recite it?Originally posted by: zendari
Why not just refuse to recite the pledge if it bothers you so much?
Originally posted by: conjur
McCarthyismOriginally posted by: Darkhawk28
Why was the change made in 1953?Originally posted by: zendari
Sure, if you can get the support to make that change.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Hey, why not just change it to "Under Allah"... and YOU can refuse to recite it?Originally posted by: zendari
Why not just refuse to recite the pledge if it bothers you so much?
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
hehOriginally posted by: marvdmartian
Well, since we live in a PC world, maybe all the whiners can get it changed to:
"....one nation, under whatever divine benevolent creature you may or may not believe in, indivisible....." :roll:
Gee, this happened in San Francisco? What a :shocked: !!! The next thing you know, we'll have same sex marriages there!! :laugh:
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
It has the word "under god"? Oh noes!
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: chambersc
AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.
Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.
It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.
gee, you're a quick one! of course it was that.
Its a problem if you don't worship the Christian gawd
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Its a problem if you don't worship the Christian gawd
No, it's a problem if you ASSUME it means the Christian god. Could mean Zeus, couldn't it? Honestly, everyone but atheists believe in some sort of a benevolent entity, and assigning a generic term of GOD doesn't make it Christian. If you used a more specific term, then you'd have a case.
Funny thing, tho......you take just about anyone that says they don't believe in the big GOD, or says they believe in something else......put them in a supremely stressful situation.......and see just how many "nonbelievers" start either praying to the god they don't believe in, or cussing him (her? it??) out!! :roll:
I personally don't care either way what they do with it. I learned it with "under God", and that's the way I'll always think of it. Perhaps the better solution for this country would be to stop trying to legislate and lawsuit everything to death?? :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Its a problem if you don't worship the Christian gawd
No, it's a problem if you ASSUME it means the Christian god. Could mean Zeus, couldn't it? Honestly, everyone but atheists believe in some sort of a benevolent entity, and assigning a generic term of GOD doesn't make it Christian. If you used a more specific term, then you'd have a case.
Funny thing, tho......you take just about anyone that says they don't believe in the big GOD, or says they believe in something else......put them in a supremely stressful situation.......and see just how many "nonbelievers" start either praying to the god they don't believe in, or cussing him (her? it??) out!! :roll:
I personally don't care either way what they do with it. I learned it with "under God", and that's the way I'll always think of it. Perhaps the better solution for this country would be to stop trying to legislate and lawsuit everything to death?? :thumbsup: