The pledge ruled unconstitutional in public schools

[livendive 8]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

This time apparently in a case brought by people with legal standing.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Channman 2]

We can always count on San Fran's to screw something.

Hey did you hear that the Gay community is planning on getting involved with the space program, their planning a trip to Uranus. Just a little joke I came across.

Sorry did'nt mean to HI-Jack this thread.

Please continue with your good work.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This time apparently in a case brought by people with legal standing.

Quote

violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

People sure have a lot of free time. I know I do.

Apparently in San Francisco, the teachers force the kids to recite the pledge. I wonder what the punishment is if they just stay quiet and sit respectfully while the other kids recite it. Maybe they get clubbed or whipped. Maybe poked with a stick. Maybe burned.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

When I chose not to say the pledge in junior high, I got sent to the principal's office. The teacher didn't know that I had a right not to say it if that was my choice (which actually had nothing to do with god. I had an issue with some other parts of the pledge which I won't go into for fear of hijacking this thread).

[Nightingale 0]

It'll be interesting to see if the supreme court grants certiorari on this (assuming the state/district appeals) or whether they decide not to address the issue.

[lawrocket 3]

The appeal will be made solely for the purposes of gettign it before the Supreme Court. We all know that the appeal to the 9th District isn't going to be where the appellants will put the bulk of their efforts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

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.

OK, you are a lawyer type... Didn't the last case get overturned (due to lack of standing of Newdow) by the SCOTUS? And since the 9th's ruling was overturned, there is no precedent to bind the judge, right?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[lawrocket 3]

I don't know about there being no precedent. In the early 1940's the SCOTUS held that it is impermissible to force a student to recite the pledge (which means that what happened to Nightingale was wrong).

Also, the SCOTUS decision merely found that the father had no standing and did not decide on the merits. However, the 9th Circuit DID decide the case on the merits, so that probably operates as the precedent that the District Judge was bound by.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

merely found that the father had no standing and did not decide on the merits

My understanding was, no standing = no case regardless of the merits, which is why Newdow had to go out and find some parents with standing to bring a new case.

And I don't think the judge was refering to the SCOTUS decision from the 40's since she mentioned the 9th's precedent being what bound her.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

OK, you are a lawyer type... Didn't the last case get overturned (due to lack of standing of Newdow) by the SCOTUS? And since the 9th's ruling was overturned, there is no precedent to bind the judge, right?

J

There wasn't really precedent, however, Newdow didn't have custody of his daughter, and the mother did. THe mother said He could not represent her. He then really had no case...

So this time he went out and found 3 anonomous families with kids to join the fight.
Sad that he is an athiest, his daughter a Christian, and he USED her to try to win a fight for his own cause.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

When I chose not to say the pledge in junior high, I got sent to the principal's office. The teacher didn't know that I had a right not to say it if that was my choice (which actually had nothing to do with god. I had an issue with some other parts of the pledge which I won't go into for fear of hijacking this thread).

Right, a teacher was wrong and needed retraining. The alternative is to rewrite the pledge so it didn't bother you and every single other person in the US. If we rewrote/reinterpreted all the laws based on single incidents we'd have a very convoluted system.

Not like the straight line simple system we have today

Did the principal do anything to you? Or did he retrain the teacher eventually. Going to the principal isn't what I'd call cruel and unusual punishment or coercion.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EricTheRed 0]

Your sig line is appaling to me as an american.

Is that the new conservatism?

illegible usually

[Nightingale 0]

well, I would like to see the pledge returned to the original words. The pledge was re-written in the 1950s to specifically include god. I think the words were perfect and much more inclusive, because you don't have to believe in a religion to be an American. Like I said, though, I objected to something else entirely.

The fight now seems to be over the issue that while children do have the right not to say the pledge, they are not informed that they have this right, and most teachers don't know either. So, even though, on paper, the student has the right not to say the pledge, in reality, oftentimes they're prevented from exercising that right. The situation I had with my teacher is not uncommon. I was standing silently with the rest of the class, hands at my sides, mouth shut. I wasn't doing anything to interfere wtih the class or create a disturbance, yet the teacher informed me that I had to say the pledge. Most kids would've done it, because when someone in authority tells you that you have to do something, most people do it. "Do this or something bad will happen to you" is coersion. For most kids, getting sent to the principal's office is traumatic and a really bad thing, especially when you're a kid that's never been in trouble at school, ever.

And yeah, when you get grounded because the principal called your dad at work, that really sucks, because you should't have been in the principal's office to begin with. Also, I missed math class, which was depriving me of my right to a free and appropriate public education.

[rehmwa 2]

Sorry you had to go through that Kris. Your teacher and the principal were in the wrong even then - still doesn't mean we revise all the laws/customs for one person's comfort. And the original change to the pledge (or one now) makes as much sense to me as commemorative coins or stamps (waste of time and energy).

Of course your parent is in charge when you're a minor, so I won't speak to the grounding. If Dad and mom want their kid to say the pledge, then the kid should.

I have a hard time with spoken words being a subset of 'coercion/coersion/coerscion/...' hollow threats don't hold a candle to torture and imprisonment.

The whole thing seems to be a pretty pissy issue altogether. Particularly when someone's pet is lost in New Orleans right now.

As far as the math session - don't you think that's a little over the top to define it as depriving you of an entire education?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[FallRate 0]

I have always thought that except for newly made citizens and military inductees, it is somewhat pointless to make people recite the pledge.

I imagine most married couples don't recite their vows everyday before breakfast.

I don't know though...maybe it does instill a sense of civic duty. *shrug*

FallRate

[tmontana 0]

Quote

Your sig line is appaling to me as an american.

Is that the new conservatism?

That is a appaling. I guess he won't ever move to new hampshire and have their state motto "live free or die" on his license plate

___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[Nightingale 0]

One could make the argument that when the pledge was changed originally, it was done for the "comfort" of those who wanted to distinguish the US from communist Russia. As I said, I would like to see the pledge restored to its original text. However, moreso, I'd like to see students and teachers made aware of their right to refrain from saying the pledge, no matter how the wording ends up. If someone is uncomfortable with pledging allegiance to something, they shouldn't have to do it.

oh... my parents didn't care that I didn't want to say the pledge. They cared that I got sent to the principal's office, no matter what for.

[lawrocket 3]

I think you are right. But, in the absence of a "controling" authority, he can look at dicta. That's my guess.

Hell, I'm stumped. I haven't seen the opinion.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

oh... my parents didn't care that I didn't want to say the pledge. They cared that I got sent to the principal's office, no matter what for.

geez- whose side are they on?

Actually for me, my parents were the cause of more trouble with the principal than my actions were.

[Nightingale 0]

LOL. My mom's a teacher. She ALWAYS sided with teachers and administration.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I have a hard time with spoken words being a subset of 'coercion/coersion/coerscion/...' hollow threats don't hold a candle to torture and imprisonment.

I don't get it, these are school kids we are talking about, why drag torture into the debate?

I assume you have ways of getting your kids to do what you want other than locking them in a basement and whipping them. Guess what, so do teachers.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Please understand, I think you have the right not to be forced to say anthing, including a pledge if you do not want to.

But........

I wonder where all this seperation shit is going? Since the declaration of independence speaks of a creator is it unconstitutional too?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Nightingale 0]

It isn't so much about separation, it's a question of where you draw the line. Would you object to the pledge if it said "one nation, under Allah"? People argue that "God" is a generic term for whatever deity, but that really isn't the case. Pretty much only christians use the word "God." So, what non-christians hear is "one nation, under the christian deity" which really isn't what the pledge is about.

The pledge is something that should unite Americans, and it seems to me that one particular phrase was put in to divide people, and has been doing so ever since. The original text was beautiful and much more inclusive, and I'd like to see a return to the original text, because there was no reason to change it to begin with.

[happythoughts 0]

I can remember when the ACLU brought two suits in the same month. One against silent prayer in schools. One to enforce the right of silent prayer at Gitmo.

I love the legal system.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Conversly I'm sure they'd also support suits to defend the right of students to prey if they wanted to and also to defend the rights of Gitmo prisoners not to be forced to prey if they didn't want to. It's all about that tricky little concept called 'freedom'.