Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools

[Kadie]

Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/14/state/n111253D61.DTL


Federal judge declares Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

(09-14) 11:06 PDT San Francisco (AP) --


The Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist whose previous attempt to get the pledge out of public schools was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/14/state/n110647D60.DTL



Pledge Of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

snip...
The judge, ruling in a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, ruled that he is bound by precedent of the Ninth U-S Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.kcra.com/news/4973144/detail.html


Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools
Wednesday, September 14, 2005

BY DAVID KRAVETS
AP LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER

snip...
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.

more...
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/APN/509140862

[hlthe2b]

1. Geez... could they not have provided SOME detail?

[Kadie]

3. I'm trying to find more info...

I think the story just broke.

[napi21]

2. Isn't that the court that keeps getting over-ruled though?

What is it, the 11th Circuit???

[racaulk]

4. Ooooooooohhhh...somebody call Tom DeLay!!!

It looks like we have an activist judge in SF!!! :sarcasm:

[formerrepuke]

5. There's not much to this article.. I wonder of there are other sources

to back up this 'report'.

[Kadie]

6. I found a little more info

added it to my original post.

[DelawareValleyDem]

8. It's on CNN breaking also

on edit: Fox News :puke: breaking too

[eallen]

7. That's a stupid headline that plays right into freepers' hands.

No judge has ever ruled the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. This is a ruling about a use of the pledge in public schools. No judge has ever ruled it unconstitutional to pray in school. We need to battle these stupid distortions of the issues.

[charlie]

9. Oh swell

Another Made for Republicans Distraction. And Democrats will stampede to innoculate themselves with some fulminating and a hastily concocted Defense of the Pledge bill. Christ, just do it now and get this comedy over with, quick.

[sybylla]

15. Yeah, after the last time this same ruling was made it took our brave

leaders all of about 24 hours before they voted to condemn it and gathered on the steps of the Capitol to say the pledge.

Fucking shills, anyway.

[tjwash]

10. Looks like they are trying to brew a distraction...

...from the B* administration incompetance, racism, and down right sheer idiocy.

The problem is, it will probably work.

[Orrex]

11. Why is it always necessary to mention that Newdow is atheist?

Yes, it pertains to the case, but it's hardly central. The ruling speaks to the unconstitutionality of the Pledge as revised in the 1950's, and it's clearly unconstitutional whether Newdow brings the case or not.

I mean, every time Pat Robertson makes the news, they don't call him "insane pseudochristian demagogue."

[BlueEyedSon]

12. Boston Herald

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=102554

[BlueEyedSon]

13. About f'in time, if you ask me!

[txaslftist]

14. Great. That's exactly what the Repuglicans need.

A talking point other than "it was Blanco & Naygin's fault"

[longship]

16. Excellent

As a small kid, I could not understand why the Pledge of Allegiance had to be changed. It was the Pledge of Allegiance!! Why is it changing?

I was never comfortable with the "under god" part. As I approached adulthood, in my late teens, I stopped saying the pledge altogether because of that inane "under god" which the Knights of Columbus lobbied Congress to put in. Eisenhower signed the damned law because he thought it was a good idea. But make no bones about it. It was a overtly religious (Catholic) organization which did this.

The rapture rightists act as if the pledge has always been, like it was something the founding fathers wrote and that under god has always been there. That isn't true. The orginal pledge was written in 1892 by a publisher of children's magazines named Ralph Bellamy. It went like this:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, equality, and justice for all.

By the time it was published, it had morphed into:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Unfortunately, women had yet to earn their voting rights and the end of the road to equality for African-Americans was some decades in the future. It was published without equality but with the grammatically correct and to the republic. In this form, it was first recited in schools.

That is, until 1923, when it was again changed, this time into a form we might almost recognize:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1954, Congress added the "under god" phrase at the encouragement of the Knights of Columbus--so much for legislation serving a secular purpose.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. I favor removing the...

...reference to God and altering the language to accurately reflect the times in which we live:

http://www.karlandkinggeorge.com/

If times change for the better we can revise it again.