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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 27, 2017
Anthony DiMaggio
Media Ban! Making Sense of the War Between Trump and the Press
Dave Lindorff
Resume Inflation at the NSC: Lt. General McMaster’s Silver Star Was Essentially Earned for Target Practice
Conn Hallinan
Is Trump Moderating US Foreign Policy? Hardly
Norman Pollack
Political Castration of State: Militarization of Government
Kenneth Surin
Inside Dharavi, a Mumbai Slum
Lawrence Davidson
Truth vs. Trump
Binoy Kampmark
The Extradition Saga of Kim Dotcom
Robert Fisk
Why a Victory Over ISIS in Mosul Might Spell Defeat in Deir Ezzor
David Swanson
Open Guantanamo!
Ted Rall
The Republicans May Impeach Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Why Should Trump―or Anyone―Be Able to Launch a Nuclear War?
Andrew Stewart
Down with Obamacare, Up with Single Payer!
Colin Todhunter
Message to John Beddington and the Oxford Martin Commission
David Macaray
UFOs: The Myth That Won’t Die?
Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail