Under God
Some local blogs are abuzz about the recent 9th circuit case ruling the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase under god. Michael Silence notes the Ninth Circuit Strikes Again and points out they are the most overturned of the circuit courts. Some insane commentator there says:
They better start praying for the almighty to save that state look at what happen to with Katrina.
Yes, God is going to kill people over this. You see, famine, terror, genocide and all sorts of nasty stuff in the world and God is going to stop what he’s doing and smite California for saying that an empty gesture that kids are pressured to recite may respect the establishment of religion. Feh.
B4B tells us this is why we should vote for Bryant.
The original pledge didn’t contain the words and they were added in the 1950s by Congress. I’m still looking in the Constitution for the authority of Congress to make a pledge. I wonder if people would object if we added ‘under Cthulhu or Satan or Allah’?
Non-local blog Xrlq:
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: Your Honor.
And Pattycakes:
Judge Karlton is just plain wrong.
They both have a lot more.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
As I pointed out two years ago, That’s technically true, but a bit misleading, as the original Pledge never had any official status at the federal level, and the second version (the current one, minus the words “under God”) wasn’t adopted by Congress until 1942, a whopping 12 years before the current one was adopted. By now, the current version is 51 years old, having lasted much longer than either the first or the second version did, and slightly longer than both combined. It’s also older than that Ten Commandments display the Supremes upheld in part because it was so old.
Don’t bother, it’s not there, at least not explicitly. Implicitly, the Pledge, along with the rest of the Flag Code, probably could be pinned on one of the national powers of need be, but seeing as it has no legal force, it probably needn’t be. I’m sure that will change if anyone ever faces a prison sentence for violating the Pledge.
“Allah” is simply Arabic for God, so in theory that should work just as generically as “God” does in English. Of course, that would beg the question of why we are using the Arabic word instead of the English word, when both languages are considered equally profane in all religions except one. “One nation under Jesus” would raise the same problem, implying a direct endorsement of a specific religion rather than generic reference to The Big Guy up there, whose reference shouldn’t offend anybody except the guy who doesn’t think there is a big guy, and really shouldn’t offend him, either since it doesn’t make sense to take offense on behalf of someone you don’t think exists.
Last and least, for the benefit of your readers it bears noting that while both Patterico and I called this moron judge a moron, or words to that effect, it was not because we disagree with him on the underlying issue, i.e., the constitutionality of the Pledge. In fact, I don’t even know what the judge’s personal opinion is on that issue, as he offered none. I do know he’s an idiot, though, as he claimed to be bound by the “precedent” of the very same case the Supremes overruled last year.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
points out they are the most overturned of the circuit courts.
This is true, but misleading. The 9th Circuit has the largest jurisdiction of any of the circuits and hears the most cases of any circuit. As such, they have the most cases overturned. However, when you look at it from percentage of cases that get overturned, the 9th is somewhere in the middle.
As I pointed out two years ago, That’s technically true, but a bit misleading, as the original Pledge never had any official status at the federal level, and the second version (the current one, minus the words “under God”) wasn’t adopted by Congress until 1942, a whopping 12 years before the current one was adopted.
not sure why you think of that is relevant. “under God” was specifically added to differentiate the US from the Soviet Union as they were “godless” at the time. The intent was clearly promotion of religion.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
jealous? I would call most of them (at the federal level) Republican appointees FWIW.
as he claimed to be bound by the “precedent” of the very same case the Supremes overruled last year.
IIRC, the Supreme Court punted saying that the plaintiff didn’t have standing and didn’t rule on the merits of the case one way or the other. Clearly this is going back to the Supreme Court. In fact, they should have just taken the case at the time rather than waste everyones time waiting for it to get back to the Supreme Court.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
The sooner the entire State of California becomes a Island Nation the better
September 15th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
That’s true, at least for the majority, but it doesn’t make Karlton any less of an idiot, as the standing doctrine applies to all federal courts, not just the Supremes. They probably couldn’t (and certainly didn’t) rule that Newdow had no standing to argue in the Supreme Court, but did have standing to argue his case in the Ninth Circuit. They ruled that no federal court had any business ruling on his case at all. It doesn’t really matter at the District Court level, but it does matter on appeal. If Karlton’s view is correct, then all three judges on appeal must rule as the majority did last time around. If not, then there’s a good chance the Ninth Circuit will uphold the Pledge on appeal and end the issue right there.