Okay, so I’m getting a bit tired of hearing people’s uninformed reactions to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. If you haven’t actually read the opinion, then chances are that you have no idea about whether Judges Goodwin and Reinhardt were correct. The media certainly haven’t reported well, and the almighty Senators and Representatives in Washington seem equally uninformed. Please, people, if you’re going to spout off about somebody being wrong, make sure you know what it is they’ve actually said. Tobias Wolff discusses the matter rather clearly.
I say this without stating my own opinion on the ruling.
On a related note, shortly after the Circuit court decision was announced, a bill was introduced in the US Senate (S2690, passed 99-0) to “reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.” The only Senator not to vote in favor was Jesse Helms (R-NC), who missed the vote for health reasons. Of special note is finding 16 in section 1 of the bill:
(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference “Year of our Lord” in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.
This is an insidious, intentional misreading of the 9th Circuit ruling, which specifically acknowledges a distinction between the Pledge, taken as a whole, and the 1954 Act, the sole purpose of which was to introduce the words “under God” into the Pledge so schoolchildren would “daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” (statement of Sen. Ferguson incorporating signing statement of President Eisenhower, 100 Cong. Rec. 8618, 1954). Judge Goodwin writes:
The flaw in defendants’ argument is that it looks at the text of the Pledge “as a whole,” and glosses over the 1954 Act. The problem with this approach is apparent when one considers the [Supreme] Court’s analysis in Wallace. There, the Court struck down Alabama’s statute mandating a moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” not because the final version “as a whole” lacked a primary secular purpose, but because the state legislature had amended the statute specifically and solely to add the words “or voluntary prayer.” 472 U.S. at 59–60.
Those are your elected representatives, folks. They criticize a ruling they haven’t read. Sure, it was a great opportunity for Republicans to ride the wave of patriotism to political success, and for Democrats to suck the wind from Republican sails. But not one Senator in the land bothered to offer a simple, “Well, the decision was consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings…” or even just a, “Oh, lets not be so hasty to condemn a ruling we haven’t read… let us read it first, then condemn it.” Nope. They’re no better than the yahoos on the street whose knee-jerk reactions to the ruling is mirrored so well by those in the Senate—truly, government of the people by the people…. For the Senators, though, unreflective unfurling of the sails to catch the public’s political gale is a bit more dangerous. It is easy to lose course in stormy weather. Unfortunately, getting things right doesn’t matter a whit to any of our Senators when it might conflict with getting votes. God Bless the USA.
NP: DangerMouse sound clips
i think you are all nuts, it is most def not unconstitutional, you are all nuts
Comment by JASON—October 20, 2003 @ 11:24 am
I’m not sure if you actually meant to offer a serious comment on this topic, or if this was just a sad attempt at comment spamming…. I don’t appreciate my page being co-opted for advertising for commercial ventures, so I have changed the link in your comment. On the off chance that you actually read my post and were responding to it, I have only this to say: Read it again, paying particular attention to the second paragraph. I never said I thought the ruling was correct. I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I don’t know how such cases should be decided. What is clear, however, is that few if any of the vocal objectors to the ruling have even read the reasoning and have themselves formed some sort of reasoned response. The whole of my post was a complaint that people spout opinions on topics of which they know little or nothing. Thank you, though, for furthering the debate with your intricate reasoning and compelling argument.
Comment by Michael—October 20, 2003 @ 12:26 pm