Supreme Court dodges "Under God" clause constitutionality question
Wriggling out of the question on a technicality, the Supreme Court opted not to rule on a decision made by the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals two years ago, which declared the phrase unconstitutional. The technicality? The man, Michael Newdow, who brought the suit on behalf of his schoolage daughter is currently locked in a custody battle with his ex-wife, and so did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Because the lower court ruling hinged on the father's being able to speak on his daughter's behalf, this non-decision effectively overturned the lower court ruling. This restores the pre-lawsuit situation, wherein it's not been ruled whether or not the phrase is constitutional, but with a presumption of constituionality. Feh.
The MSNBC link (listed in the first paragraph) notes something that the AP one doesn't, that Chief Justice William Renquist, and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor & Clarence Thomas all agree, writing separately, that the current form of the Pledge doesn't violate the Constitution. So, that's three who would come down in favor of maintaining the addition made back in 1954, during the Red Scare.
Now it becomes a matter of whether or not someone else will have the guts - for which I give Newdow considerable credit - to press this same issue in the courts... or, if Newdow is granted a sufficient degree of custody to renew the case. The disruption to his life (not to mention that of his daughter) must have been immense.
The notion that "the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion" is absurd, as it is just such references that are frequently drawn on by those who insist that this was founded as a God-centered nation. A mature nation should be trying to strip these bits out where they've settled, as it's as absurd as it would be to have members of Congress ceremonially knock wood before beginning session. Declaring a divine origin for anything that affects and controls people's lives is the start of trouble. A responsible people will accept that laws and governments are the creation of mankind, not point to the skies or invoke a passage of scripture instead of thinking.
Comments