Well, this should be lots of fun once more.

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

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.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.

In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.

Is the parent actually the child's guardian this time?

Read the article hoser:

san francisco baby!

Nice highlighting job, jerky.

So they're saying its unconstitutional for anyone to recite the pledge in school period, or am I missing something?

Having not read the opinion, I'd guess that the ruling is that it's unconstitutional for a school to require students to recite the pledge, and yes, probably all students, since even if a student wishes to be silent, they are still subjected to the rest of the class reciting the pledge.

I think this is clearly unconstitutional, but it'll be interesting to see how the Supreme COurt gets around that.

What if the kid doesn't have a problem with it?

So are you saying the constitution protects people from hearing other people say they believe in God? I can see it being unconstitutional to make someone say they believe in God. However I can't see how someone is harmed by hearing someone else say they believe in God.

Kids don't have the right to make such decisions. I think every justice on the court would agree that a parent has the absolute right to make decisions on behalf of their children when it comes to their religious education.

If the kids parents have no problem.....

So how you're framing this issue is the right of parent not to be forced to have his or her child indoctrinated with religion by being in the same room as others saying "One nation, under God?" It sounds like this is not about the kids, but about the parents? If that's the case, what's the difference between this case and the former where the parent had no standing?

...they wouldn't be suing.


Exactly that, these parents have standing, no other difference. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to punt last time by not deciding the real issue because the plaintiff didn't have standing to sue, and I beleive that was correctly decided. This time they won't have the luxury of ducking the issue.

It seems that taking the phrase "under god" out of the pledge like it was before 1954 would avoid all of this controversy... I mean, can't we be strong as a country through humanity or do we need "god" to look over us. Basically, if this country is not under god, does it really matter, it is still going to have its great things and problems. Who cares?

Well, it's a bit late for that now, I think. But it is an excellent illustration of why we can't allow what looks like a minor constitutional infringement in an extraordinary time, because it digs itself in and is VERY hard to extract later on when it becomes clear that it is a constitutional infringement and no longer serves ANY purpose except to fester and divide us.

I'm talking about the parents that dont object to their kids saying "one nation under God". Why should those kids not be allowed to recite the pledge?

I think you are right too, as far as removing the phrase won't work, on second thought it would just add fuel to this fire... And true too, at the time it seemed like a minor exchange of constitutional rights for some partriotism, and now look at how stupid this whole thing is.

Because the pledge as it is now written is an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion by the state, which is prohibited by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Plus the pledge as a whole is a fascist, and idolatrous subjugation of freedom of political dissent to the "Republic" and to an object that is representative of that republic. It is an infringement not only upon my freedom of speech, but on my freedom to practice my religion which states quite clearly:



Ironic, isn't it?

how bout we change it to under Allah? If i have a kid i'm gonna make him or her say,"under Budweiser"....cause that's how him/her will be conceived.

or just completely delete "under god" "under budwieser" etc. etc. or just get rid of the pledge all togther for all i care.