Suit about Pledge of Allegiance - Assignment Example

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag al Affiliation: I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag Question Michael Newdow had a daughter who attended a public school which was located in Elk Grove Unified School District in California. However the teacher in Elk Grove made it a routine to begin school days by reciting the pledge of allegiance, the words “under God” were added to this pledge by a congressional act enacted in 1954.newdow however sued the Elk Grove school in the federal district court in California, basing his argument on the fact that students should not be made to listen to the words “ under God” even if they choose to withdraw their participation because this violates the constitution’s first amendment of the united states (Legal Information Institute, 2004). Newdow’s claims were however dismissed by the district federal court on the basis of lack of standings, since he had complicated domestic issues in the sense that his daughter’s mother had divorced him thus denying him custody. The U.S. ninth circuit court of appeal did support Newdow stating that he had standing since he was trying to challenge a routine that violates his Right to direct his daughter’s religious education. The Ninth circuit passed a verdict that demonstrated the violation of the first amendment establishment clause, by both the congress’ move to add the words “ under God” to the pledge in 1954 and the school district policy that asks schools to recite this pledge in the start of every school day. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have sufficient custody over his daughter. This ruling is criticized by Justice John Paul Stevens in the sense that the Supreme Court should not have allowed the domestic issue to bar it from taking a constitutional view of the case brought forth. This is because, the court ruled Newdow as having insufficient custody over her daughter and left it at that. It is also important to note that willing student were the only once led in the recitation of this pledge (Associated Press, 2004). Question 2 The Elk Grove unified school district v. Newdow was a case that was decided in the Supreme Court. The case was filled in the year 2000 on the United States district court in California. Newdow claimed that the inclusion of the word “under God” by the congress in 1954 was a violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution. The inclusion of these words in the pledge and its recitation masked his right to inoculate his daughter’s religious beliefs. The court however found the claim to be unconstitutional and this resulted in the dismissal of this case. The United States court of appeal, the ninth circuit handled this case since Newdow was not satisfied with the district court’s verdict so he appealed. The ninth circuit however gave three opinions in regard to the case. The first opinion was issued by a panel of three judges in favor of Newdow. This verdict stipulated that Newdow as a parent has the right to challenge a practice that inhibits his right to control his daughter’s religious education (Legal Information Institute, 2004). The second opinion issued by the court was based on the fact that despite Banning’s claim that her daughter is a Christian and listing or reciting the pledge was not a violation in any way, Newdow could not be deprived the daughters custody so granting him the right to challenge practices that affect her daughter. The third opinion granted Newdow the constitutional right to challenge the 1954 act. The case then advanced to the Supreme Court on March 24, 2004. The court however considered two questions: (1) whether Newdow had standings to challenge the policy of reciting the pledge on school day by the school district. (2) If that’s the case, does the policy interfere with the first amendment to the United States constitution? The Supreme Court then passed a verdict declaring Newdow’s lacking standings (Associated Press, 2004). Question 3 The supreme court, in the opinion written by justice John Pau Steve and five out of the eight remaining justices after justice Antonin Scalia rescued himself from the case, stated that Newdow lacked standings to persue the case as her daughter’s “next friend”, because his divorced wife Sandra Banning had sole custody for their daughter as a declaration that was issued by the district court. The other three justices however found that Michael Newdow had standings to bring the suit they concurred in judgment with the court of appeal. They however advanced to the constitutionality of the case as suggested by Newdow and came into a conclusion that the policy did not offend the first amendment to the United States constitution. Justice Rehnquist further regarded the term “under God” as an acknowledgement of the state’s religious heritage and not a term that endorses religion. Justice Thomas declines the idea of treating the pledge as being unconstitutional as it compels students to be prayerful and aware of penalties of evil deed by a supreme being under which we dwell in (Legal Information Institute, 2004). The Supreme Court’s verdict on this case aroused mixed opinions, for instance Newdow claimed that the fact that the court denied him custody over his daughter is a violation of the parent’s right. Question 4 A religious perspective was taken by Dr. James C. Dobson who is the chairperson of the Fundamentalist Christian group. He stated that the Supreme Court does not emerge from the case as the defender of the American’s moral custody and Christian heritage. The court suspends and leave the nation in a wonder whether God’s name would be found un constitutional if a another similar challenge is brought forth by an individual with standing, he preferred that the court should have settled the matter once and for all so as to give the American people a definite path to follow. An American atheists also claimed that the supreme court ducked its mandated responsibility by failing to provide a valid and a satisfactory verdict on this issue since it affects the constitutionality; instead the court dismissed Newdow’s claims on the basis of lack of standings and leaves it at that, evading to answer the most crucial question, whether the name of God is unconstitutional and if a change in this section of the pledge is necessary (Lithwick, 2004). Question 5 This verdict by the United States Supreme Court has declared the state either directly or indirectly to be uncertain about what is wrong and right. This brands all the Americans fence sitters since a clear distinction on the constitutionality of the phrase has not been provided. Categorizing the pledge as a religious issue or a symbol of loyalty to the state is a crucial decision to make. However, the mention of the word God in the pledge recognizes the Christian heritage of the nation so it is a spiritual issue. Willing students were led in the recitation of this pledge but the effect on the non-willing student is of a substantial magnitude that is recognizable. Newdow was right in complaining the words in the pledge interfere with his duty of guiding his daughter religiously. This can be dismissed on the basis of paganism but religion is supposed to be a voluntary issue and not pasted (Associated Press, 2004). Moreover, it is almost obvious that the inclusion of the phrase “under God” by the congress in 1954, has ignited more of the religious concerns than loyalty issues since everybody that believes in the existence of a supernatural being tend to prioritize it over loyalty to the country. That is why the issue has aroused mixed reactions. Question 6 Student should be educated both spiritually and socially. Most rampant criminal activities in the society today can be attributed to the diminishing loyalty towards ones country. Loyalty is a behavioral aspect that one has to grow with since it is technical to attain it at a later age. One must start appreciating his country since childhood. The idea of reciting the pledge in public schools is a totally buyable one since it gives rise to a society that is aware of the existence of a God and their duty to the nation. It grants student the feeling of being part of something which is the nation since every citizen is entitled to national growth. The aspect of God in the pledge also creates a generation that is well informed of their existence under a supreme being who issues penalties for the wrongs done (Bellamy, 2002). Most crime emanate from disloyalty to the state and lack of the fear of the lord, so the fact that the pledge has both perception implies that it is likely to have a positive influence on generations to come. In conclusion, the Supreme Court has created fence sitters out of the American people by failing to take a rational position on the case. The court drops the case on the basis of standings in regard to Newdow’s domestic issues and leaves it at that. The court does face the issue once and for all and this doesn’t clarify the path for the American people on this vital issue of the constitutionality of the word God in the pledge and its recite in general. The verdict by the Supreme Court dwelled on Newdow’s standings and did not address the question of constitutionality of the case. The verdict can therefore be termed as open ended since this case can be filled by an individual with standing thus taking the country back into a historical moment that could have been avoided. References Associated Press. (2004). Court Dismisses Pledge Suit. NBC NEWS. Retrieved From: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5208621/ns/politics/t/court-dismisses-pledge-suit/ Bellamy, F. (2002). I Pledge Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance: With Commentary. Candlewick Press. Legal Information Institute. (2004). Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html Lithwick, D. (2004). Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow: Ten Commandments of Oral Argument. The University of Michigan Press. Retrieved From: https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116362-elkgrove.pdf Read More