What Would The Founders Think of The Pledge of Allegiance?
In one of the most controversial decisions handed down by a court of law in recent years, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Wednesday, June 26, that the phrase "under God," contained in our nation's Pledge of Allegiance since 1954, is unconstitutional. The ruling directly impacts the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. And it has sent shockwaves throughout the legal, political, and educational communities well beyond its defined reach.
In the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court panel's majority opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, the First Amendment's famous Establishment Clause is violated when young people are asked to recite a Pledge of Allegiance to their country that claims it is "under God." Even though students are not individually required to say the Pledge of Allegiance, the court panel maintained that "[t]he coercive effect" of school classes reciting the Pledge as a group "is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students."
The ruling has brought swift and public denunciations from every corner of the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats alike. The White House issued a statement immediately after the ruling, calling it "ridiculous." President George W. Bush later added, in a personal statement the following day, that the Ninth Circuit Court's decision was "out of step with the history and traditions of the country." Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) called the ruling "embarrassing." The U.S. Senate unanimously condemned it, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) called on all senators to gather for the morning Pledge of Allegiance, as a show of protest, the day after the ruling. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) threatened to introduce a constitutional amendment "if necessary" to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to our nation's classrooms, and Representative Dick Armey (R-Texas) declared that any judge that has a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance "shouldn't be on the bench." The outcry from the nation's newspapers and the public-at-large as been equally resounding. So much so that Judge Goodwin stayed his own ruling, the day after he issued it, giving the full Ninth Circuit Court time to determine whether it wishes to reconsider his decision.
Public emotion does not, however, equate with valid jurisprudence. The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit panel must be evaluated on its legal merits, not simply denounced on account of its controversial ramifications or its threat to societal tradition.
Latest Articles