Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : John Kerry for President Free speach thread NON-CENSORED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (933)	9/14/2005 10:25:22 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

Pledge Unconstitutional at Public Schools, Judge Says (Update4) Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge in California said the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, in a ruling that will rekindle a debate over the use of the phrase ``under God.'' Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento, California, today said that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with the phrase ``under God'' is unconstitutional. The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist who had previously sued to challenge the use of the phrase. The U.S. Supreme Court last year vacated a decision that said a California school district violated the Constitution's separation of church and state clause by requiring teachers to lead the pledge. The justices didn't decide whether the pledge was constitutional, instead ruling that Newdow lacked the right to bring the challenge. Newdow overcame the hurdle by including students who live in the district in today's case. Karlton said he followed a previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco. Newdow's claims ``are resolved because the 9th Circuit has held that the school policy mandating the pledge is unconstitutional,'' Karlton wrote. `Puzzling' Ruling It's ``puzzling'' that Karlton said the 9th Circuit case ``commands him to do something, since that case was effectively wiped from the books by the Supreme Court's holding that Mr. Newdow didn't have standing,'' said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, California. The opinion Karlton is relying on ``no longer counts as binding precedent.'' Derek Gaubatz, director of litigation for the Washington- based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said his group would appeal today's decision. Gaubatz said he represents 10 students and their parents in the Sacramento case. ``We object to the ruling that the pledge violates any part of the establishment clause,'' Gaubatz said. ``We will immediately appeal'' the ruling to a federal appeals court, ``and if necessary to the Supreme Court to get that ruling reversed to secure the constitutionality of the pledge once and for all.'' Newdow, a Sacramento lawyer representing three students in the case, said he didn't know whether Judge Karlton was correct in relying on the 9th Circuit opinion. Public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge is an unlawful mixing of government policy and religion, he said. ``Constitutionally, he ruled impeccably,'' Newdow said in an interview. ``The question is, is the manner in which he got there correct? I don't know. I'm not sure.'' Roberts Hearings Today's ruling doesn't require the four Sacramento-area public school districts Newdow sued to change their practice of reciting the pledge. Karlton said he'd issue a restraining order ``upon a properly supported motion.'' Karlton's ruling is likely to take on more prominence as the U.S. Senate considers the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts. The ruling was released on a court Web site today during Roberts hearing today in Washington. ``This is an example, in my opinion, of where judges do not protect us from having the government impose religion on us, but declare war on all things religious,'' Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said during Roberts' hearing. `Role of Faith' In Newdow's previous case, the Bush administration defended the use of the ``one nation under God'' phrase, saying it acknowledged the role that faith has played in the formation of the country. ``We believe very deeply in the right to pledge allegiance to our great nation and this ruling, while disappointing, does nothing to change our view,'' Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Education Department in Washington, said today. The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942 without the ``under God'' reference. A year later, in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools can't require children to recite the pledge. In 1954 Congress voted to add the reference to God, citing a need to ``deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism.'' The school districts are the Elk Grove Unified School District, Sacramento City Unified School District, Elverta Joint Elementary School District and the Rio Linda School District. The case is Newdow v. Congress of the United States of America, No. S-05-17, in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net Last Updated: September 14, 2005 20:26 EDT