Pledge of Allegiance ruled Unconstitutional

Main > Everything Else

<< < (14/15) > >>

ChadTower:

Because the pledge is not in violation of the first amendment. Mandatory recitation of the pledge in public school was ruled in violation of the first amendment, not the pledge itself. That is why mandatory recitation is going to be eliminated instead of having the pledge changed.

Without mandatory recitation, the pledge is just something people say, and is itself protected by that same first amendment.

Crazy Cooter:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore a law mandating recitation of the phrase "under god" violates the First Amendment. A law mandating recitation of the rest of it does not.

So as currently written, the pledge violates the First Amendment because of the "under god" bit. Take that out and you have a winner... just like it was before that part was added in.

ChadTower:

It is the rule mandating recitation that was ruled unconstitutional. They have two options:

Change the pledge or repeal the rule.

They have no power to change the pledge, therefore they must repeal the rule.

Stingray:
This whole thread is going against my constitutional right to be frivilous. I'm going back to the cheerleader thread.

-S

Crazy Cooter:
Ripped from another site:
...the Pledge was amended in 1954 to include the words "under God;" legislation to add the motto "In God We Trust" to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" [out of many, one] was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956.

History (also ripped):
The resolution to change the Pledge was introduced into the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut. He proposed to add the words "under God" as "one nation, under God." Note the placement of the comma between "one nation" and "under God." As part of its deliberations, the House Judiciary Committee solicited an opinion for comma placement from the Library of Congress. Three proposals were considered:

one Nation, under God
one Nation under God
one Nation indivisible under God
The Library of Congress reported the following recommendation:

". . . Under the generally accepted rules of grammar, a modifier should normally be placed as close as possible to the word it modifies. In the present instance, this would indicate that the phrase 'under God,' being intended as a fundamental and basic characterization of our Nation, might well be put immediately following the word 'Nation.' Further, since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there would seem to be no reason for a comma after Nation; 'one Nation under God' thus becomes a single phrase, emphasizing precisely the idea desired by the authors . . ."

The Judiciary Committee and the House concurred with the Library of Congress, adopting the single phrase. The Senate co-sponsor of the resolution was Sen. Homer Ferguson, who said of the joint resolution during Senate debate, "Our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God . . ." Evidently, it was so important for this Congress to officially acknowledge the United States as a nation founded on a belief in a God, that even comma placement was debated to ensure the proper meaning was conveyed! With insertion of the words "under God," the Pledge has now become both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

It seems to me that someone should stand up in congress and say: "Kids should be given the opportunity to be patriotic. If that means reverting back to the older version... then let's do it."

Anyhow the site is: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1999/May99/lynn.html and is a pretty quick read on the history behind the pledge.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version