Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only ask one time of year, but when we do, we mean it. Without your support we can’t continue to bring you the very best material, day-in and day-out. CounterPunch is one of the last common spaces on the Internet. Help make sure it stays that way.
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:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
David Swanson
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
James McEnteer
Eugene, Oregon and the Rising Cost of Cool
Norman Pollack
The Great Debate: Proto-Fascism vs. the Real Thing
Michael Winship
The Tracks of John Boehner’s Tears
John Steppling
Fear Level Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Where Is That Wasteful Government Spending?
James Russell
Beyond Debate: Interview Styles of the Rich and Famous
September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
David Swanson
Turn the Pentagon into a Hospital
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail