FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Pledge of Allegiance v. the Constitution

by Walter Brasch President Bush Call The Decision "ridiculous."

President Bush call the decision “ridiculous.”

Sen. Maj. Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said it was “just nuts.”

New York Gov. George Pataki called it “junk justice.”

Calif. Gov. Gray Davis, in whose state the decision was issued, said he was “extremely disappointed.”

The U.S. Senate, debating a defense bill, stopped and passed a resolution, 99-0, denouncing the decision. Dozens of representatives gathered in front of the nation’s capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 2-1, that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment establishment clause of separation of church and state. The 7th Circuit, Chicago, several years earlier had ruled the clause was Constitutional. The 9th Circuit decision affects only Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Chief Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, writing the majority opinion, determined the recitation of the phrase, “under God,” is “a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite and lead the recitation of the current form of the pledge.” Judge Goodwin further ruled, “Given the age and impressionability of school children, particularly within the confined environment of the classroom, the policy is likely to convey an impermissible message of endorsement to some and disapproval to others of their beliefs regarding the existence of a monotheistic God.”

Constitutional law scholars of most political and legal backgrounds say there is substance in the Court’s decision, which carefully cited previous federal court decisions. The scholars also say the decision will most likely be overturned either by the 9th circuit’s full 11-judge panel or by the conservative Supreme Court which could decide the recitation of the phrase is more ceremonial than prescriptive.

The Pledge, written by a Baptist minister in 1892, was first recited in honor of the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s voyage to what is now the United States. A 1943 Supreme Court decision declared that children can not be forced to recite the pledge. The “under God” phrase was added by Congressional action in 1954 after heavy lobbying by the Knights of Columbus. At the time, the nation was embroiled in a Cold-War Communist witch hunt to distinguish “God-fearing Americans” from the “Russian atheistic horde” which business and government leaders thought was determined to destroy America from inside.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), as well as hundreds of lawmakers from the smallest villages to the Senate, are angrily calling for a Constitutional amendment to assure that “under God” remains in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Founding Fathers would probably be amused. They had made it possible to amend what they thought was their work-in-progress document. But, they wisely knew that the foundation they laid for the new nation would be undermined by rhetoric, vitriol, and impassioned attempts to decimate that Constitution if there were not the most rigorous safeguards against loading the Constitution with dozens of partisan amendments that would eventually conflict with each other, rendering that document useless.

There are only two ways to amend the Constitution. Both houses of Congress must first approve, by two-thirds vote, resolutions calling for the amendment. The amendment must then be ratified within seven years by the legislatures of three-fourths of all states. The second method is for the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call for a Constitutional convention, with three-fourths of all states approving the amendment. More than 10,000 serious proposals for amendments have surfaced in the two centuries following the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Only 17, all from Congressional resolutions, have been adopted. Among the proposals have been several to diminish the establishment clause.

In a two decade period beginning in the early-1890s, Americans proposed at least 10 serious amendments to meld Christianity into the Constitutional fabric; most declared that Jesus is the nation’s spiritual leader and the Christian Bible is the underlying document of conduct. While popular with a nation that had become more religiously fundamental, that proposal, like thousands of others, died when the people realized the wisdom of a Constitution unencumbered by divisive zealousness. Recent amendments that failed, although they had popular support, include a prohibition against burning American flags as a form of free speech, a victim rights amendment, and the Equal Rights Amendment.

Although the proposed amendment has the support of more than 90 percent of all Americans, amendments as the Founding Fathers intended should not be enacted because the people are inflamed about an issue. The issue will quickly pass. The people will have vented their anger and affirmed their own beliefs; morally-outraged and opportunistic politicians will find other ways to arouse their constituents; a higher court may overturn the decision, rendering moot all public arguments.

Whether or not the proposed amendment remains viable, there is a greater reality. In 1984, several liberal Supreme Court justices informally declared that references to God in currency, federal documents, and even the Pledge didn’t violate the establishment clause. Because of rote memorization, said the Justices, such references have no meaning. Perhaps the problem is not that saying “under God” in a morning school ritual violates the First Amendment, but that millions say it as part of a memorization exercise and have no idea what any of it means, or of the document that established the foundation of our country.

Walt Brasch is former newspaper reporter and editor, and author of 14 books. He is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University. His latest book is “The Joy of Sax: America During the Bill Clinton Era.” You may write Brasch at wbrasch@planetx.bloomu.edu

Walter Brasch is an award-winning social issues journalist. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an analysis of the history, economics, and politics of fracking, as well as its environmental and health effects.

More articles by:
May 30, 2016
Ron Jacobs
The State of the Left: Many Movements, Too Many Goals?
James Abourezk
The Intricacies of Language
Porfirio Quintano
Hillary, Honduras, and the Murder of My Friend Berta
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes on ISIS are Reducing Their Cities to Ruins
Uri Avnery
The Center Doesn’t Hold
Raouf Halaby
The Sailors of the USS Liberty: They, Too, Deserve to Be Honored
Rodrigue Tremblay
Barack Obama’s Legacy: What Happened?
Matt Peppe
Just the Facts: The Speech Obama Should Have Given at Hiroshima
Deborah James
Trade Pacts and Deregulation: Latest Leaks Reveal Core Problem with TISA
Michael Donnelly
Still Wavy After All These Years: Flower Geezer Turns 80
Ralph Nader
The Funny Business of Farm Credit
Paul Craig Roberts
Memorial Day and the Glorification of Past Wars
Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
Rivera Sun
White Rose Begins Leaflet Campaigns June 1942
Tom H. Hastings
Field Report from the Dick Cheney Hunting Instruction Manual
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail