|
June 28 / 30, 2002
Cockburn / St. Clair
Death,
Juries and Scalia
Tarif Abboushi
Bush's
Double Standard
on Israel
N.D. Jayaprakash
Seething
with Rage:
The Palestinian Saga
Michael Yates
Taking
the Pledge:
Teachers and the Flag
Stephen Zunes
Bush's
Speech a Setback
for Peace
Walt Brasch
The Pledge
v. The Constitution
Cockburn / St. Clair
Strikers
as Terrorists?
Tom Ridge Calls Longshoremen
June 27, 2002
Ralph Nader
Reclaiming
Our Commons
Neve Gordon
Jerusalem
Under Attack
Robert Jensen
Alternative
Futures
David Vest
Darryl Kile's
Great Day
Gary Leupp
The Loya
Jirga Joke
Rahual Mahajan
Arafat
Says US Needs New Leadership; Calls for Fair Elections
June 26, 2002
Robert Fisk
Sharon as
Bush Speechwriter
Mokhiber / Weissman
Brokerman
June 25, 2002
Dave Marsh
The RIAA,
Library of Congress and the Web Pirates
Uri Avnery
Reform
Now!
Bahour / Dahan
Bush:
Off with Arafat's Head
Walt Brasch
Bush:
the Compassionate Exerciser
June 24, 2002
Bernard Weiner
Talkin'
About the F-Word
David Bates
Portland
Gets Dicked:
Cheney Does Oregon
Jo Freeman
Will
the War on Terror Follow the Path of the Cold War?
Tom Gorman
The Only
Thing "Generous" is the Propaganda
Bezhad Yaghmaian
Caught
Between Borders
in a Borderless World
Ben Sonnenberg
Ted
Hughes' Spell
June 22/23, 2002
Douglas Valentine
Sex,
Drugs & the CIA
June 21, 2002
Norman Madarasz
Brazil
Over England:
The Gaucho's Wild Ride
John Borowski
Stossel
and Disney's Crimes Against Nature
Chris Floyd
Southern
Cross: The US Takes Aim at Brazil
David Martin
Of Lies
and Oil: an interview with Rahul Mahajan
James T. Phillips
Serbian
Reservations:
Kosovo 2002
June 20, 2002
Chris Kromm
The South
at War: a Tour of the US Military/Industrial Complex
Jacob Levich
The War
on Terror is
Not a Suicide Pact
Mark Weisbrot
What
are They Doing to Argentina?
Jeffrey St. Clair
and Alexander Cockburn
Fire
Walk With Me:
Terry Lynn Barton and the Flames of Colorado
June 19, 2002
Gary Leupp
Red Targets in Terror War
Lenni Brenner
The Road
Forward for the
Palestinian Movement
Bernard Weiner
Inside
Cheney's Diary:
Cakewalking Through Minefields
Alexander Cockburn
The
Incredible Shrinking President
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
Weekend
Edition
June 28/30, 2002
The
"Under God" Clause: A Different View
Protecting America Against Partisan
Zealousness
by Walter Brasch
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
This
Weekend's Features
Cockburn / St. Clair
Death,
Juries and Scalia
Tarif Abboushi
Bush's
Double Standard
on Israel
N.D. Jayaprakash
Seething
with Rage:
The Palestinian Saga
Michael Yates
Taking
the Pledge:
Teachers and the Flag
Stephen Zunes
Bush's
Speech a Setback
for Peace
Walt Brasch
The Pledge
v. The Constitution
Cockburn / St. Clair
Strikers
as Terrorists?
Tom Ridge Calls Longshoremen
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|