Unified School District vs Newdow - Case Study Example

Case study 2: I pledge allegiance to the flag Salient points Unified school District V Newdow is a case in which Michael Newdow sued the United States Congress and Elk Grove Unified School District among other parties for making her daughter recite and hear other students recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The recital has a clause “under God” which Michael Newdow finds injurious to her daughter. Michael Newdow is an atheist and parent to a young girl who attends public elementary school in the state of California. During the start of every school day, the state requires learners to recite pledge of allegiance, which is an appropriate patriotic exercise to the nation. Newdow understands that the recital of the pledge of allegiance is voluntary and does not therefore claim that the school and the teachers compel her daughter to recite the pledge of allegiance. However, he claims that her daughter hears other students recite the pledge of allegiance and often takes part in the recital a feature that has caused her a legally provable and recognizable injury. As such, Newdow sought for injunctive and declaratory relief. Such a relief would declare the phrase “under God” unconstitutional thereby prohibiting schools from requiring the recital of the pledge of allegiance daily by school children in public schools (United States, 2004). Levels of the court the case went through The Supreme Court decided the case in 2004. However, the case reached the Supreme Court after a number of hearings in successive lower level courts both at the state and at national levels. The case began at District court where after reading the recommendations of a federal magistrate judge, which established that the recitation did not violate any clause, Judge Edward J. Schwartz of the U.S. District Court dismissed the case. Michael Newdow appealed to ruling by the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge bench heard the appeal and ruled in Newdow’s favor thereby declaring the entire pledge unconstitutional. President George W. Bush administration together with the school district appealed the ruling thereby requesting the court of appeal to increase the number of judges on the bench to hear the case afresh. The Ninth Circuit refused could not rehear the case but offered a new opinion, which affirmed the ban on the recitation in school but omitted a section that had previously declared the entire pledge unconstitutional. Decision of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court revoked Ninth Circuits decision that had refused to increase the number of judges on the bench to rehear the case and had declared the phrase “Under God” unconstitutional. According to the Ninth Circuit, the pledge of allegiance violated the Establishment Cause of the First Amendment since it endorsed a religion. The highest court of appeal thus overturned the ruling on a number of reasons most of which questioned the basis and efficacy of the entire case as filed by Michael Newdow. The Supreme Court ruled that Michael Newdow did not have any standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. The ruling reversed the decisions of the Ninth Circuit based on procedural law. As such, the Supreme Court did not consider the constitutionality of the issues that arose from the case as discussed in the ninth circuit. As explained earlier, Michael Newdow was the father of the pupil in question. However, she did not have the custodial rights of the child. On December 4, 2002, Sandra Banning, the child’s mother, filed a motion seeking to intervene or dismiss the entire case as filed by Newdow. She argued that while they shared the custody of the girl, a court in California had granted her exclusive rights of the child. Such rights included the right to provide the child with legal representation. Her arguments were vital and changed the course of the case even before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court therefore debated on the suitability of Michael Newdow to provide the child with legal representation. The Court thus concluded that he did not have any rights and did not have any to sue for the child. The decision declared other rulings on the case null and void. Impact of the ruling The decision of the Supreme Court showed the constitutional nature with which the justice system in the United States operates. The Supreme Court investigated the procedure and constitutionality of the case as filed by Michael Newdow. Apparently, Newdow did not have any legal rights to represent the child a feature that declared the entire case un-procedural. As such, the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional issues the case raised. While the Supreme Court did not create any national precedent, it underscored the need to respect existing court rulings since Newdow had disregarded a ruling that provided the Banning with the exclusive rights over the girl. The court decision shows the liberties that Americans have and their ability to demand more rights by interpreting the constitution. However, the decision shows the need to remain reasonable and follow procedures. Rights and freedoms have a number of responsibilities that people must observe in order to create an ideal and ethical society. Michael Newdow did not have any constitution rights over the child owing to the nature of his relationship with the child’s mother. The ruling, therefore, encourages Americans to appreciate such basic instituting as the family and appreciates the ethical tenets that constitute them. My belief on the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance I believe that the phrase “Under God” is not a religious issue but a sign of respect to the Nation. The entire allegiance describes the basic features that contribute to the creation of a cohesive society. In doing this, the pledge of allegiance shows the heritage of the nation as built by the country’s founding fathers. The pledge secular and has not religious connotation. The phrase is integral since it shows the key features and values that the nation’s founding fathers upheld while creating a country comprising of numerous states (Merriman, 2007). The structure and the wording of the pledge including the phrase “Under God” are, therefore, basic features that show the factors that led to the unification of the states. The phrase does not encourage any American to acknowledge God. Instead, it serves as a mere reminder of the origin of the nation and the creation of the Union. Another equally vital argument is the fact that the pledge is not an act of religion. Additionally, the pledge is not a profession of any religious belief. The phrase “Under God” shows the ceremonial deism of the entire pledge (Jones & Meyer, 2010). This way, the pledge remains devoid of any specific religious meanings that would offend such people as Michael Newdow. Public schools should continue reciting the pledge of allegiance The pledge of allegiance is as important to the nation as the national anthem. Such are symbols of national unity that enhances the cohesiveness of the Union. Patriotism is a vital feature that enhances the productivity of citizens. As such, Americans require as many symbols of national unity to help underscore the need for both patriotism and national unity. Currently, the country continues to face a number of challenges with the youth being easy targets for terrorist organization that want to indoctrinate them thereby positioning them against their nation. Public schools should, therefore, use such basic tools as the national anthem and the pledge of allegiance to enhance the development of nationalism among the youthful population. The students should understand the values that formed the Union thereby overcome such basic prejudices as racism among others. The pledge is fundamental in passing down the values of the nation to the future generations of the country (Lynch, 2011). References Jones, J. O., & Meyer, P. (2010). The pledge: A history of the Pledge of Allegiance. New York : Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martins Press. Lynch, C. (2011). I pledge allegiance. New York: Scholastic. Merriman, S. A. (2007). Religion and the law in America: An encyclopedia of personal belief and public policy. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. United States. (2004). Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004). Bethesda, Md: LexisNexis. Read More